TC 

425 

.C62 A3 
1919 

cp.2 

% * * * 

FT MEADE 
GenCol1 




































































































































































































/ 


















Ip 


E 


i«> l«r 



1 


66 t c sr s ’ 1 H0USE 0F REPRESENTATIVES. | 


Document 
No. 304. 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 

-/3J9 

LETTER 

FROM 

THE SECRETARY OF WAR. 

TRANSMITTING 

WITH A LETTER FROM THE ACTING CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, REPORT 
ON PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF COLORADO RIVER, TEX.,, 
WITH A VIEW TO DEVISING PLANS FOR FLOOD PROTECTION AND 
DETERMINING THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES 
SHOULD COOPERATE WITH THE STATES AND OTHER COMMUNI¬ 
TIES AND INTERESTS IN CARRYING OUT SUCH PLANS, ITS SHARE 
BEING BASED ON THE VALUE OF PROTECTION TO NAVIGATION. 


November 19, 1919.—Referred to the Committee on Flood Control and ordered to be- 
printed, with illustrations. 


War Department, 
Washington, November 18, 1919. 
The Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith, a letter from the 1 
Acting Chief of Engineers, United States Aimy, of 14th instant, 
together with report of Col. Spencer Cosby, Corps of Engineers, 
dated June 30, 1919, with maps and photographs, on a preliminary 
examination of Colorado River, Tex., authorized by the river and 
harbor act approved July 27, 1916. 

Very respectfully, 

Newton D. Baker, 


z.o-'Z-tc 


Secretary of Warn 


War Department, 

Office of the Chief of Engineers, 

Washington, November 7J, 1919. 
From: The Acting Chief of Engineers. 

To: The Secretary of War. 

Subject: Preliminary examination of Colorado River, Tex. 

1. There is submitted herewith for transmission to Congress report 
dated June 30, 1919, with maps and photographs, by Col. Spencer 
Cosby, Corps of Engineers, on'preliminary examination authorized by 








2 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 






the river and harbor act approved July 27, 1916, of Colorado River, 
Tex., ‘ ‘ with a view to devising plans for flood protection and determin¬ 
ing the extent to which the United States should cooperate with the 
States and other communities and interests in carrying out such 
plans, its share being based on the value of protection to navigation.” 

2. The Colorado River rises in the western part of the State of 
Texas and flows in a southeasterly direction for a distance of about 
700 miles to Matagorda Bay on the Gulf of Mexico. It has a drainage 
area of 37,800 square miles. From its source to Coke County the 
river flows through the semiarid plains section, and at Ballinger it 
enters the mountain region extending to Austin, a distance of about 
330 miles. Below Austin it follows a winding course through the 
rolling country of central Texas, until it reaches the flat coastal plain 
that borders the Gulf. Between mile 35 and mile 40 above the 
mouth the river is entirely blocked by what is known as the “Big 
Raft,” a huge mass of drift which completely fills the river, while 
between mile 8 and mile 35 numerous smaller, rafts obstruct the 
channel in various places. The section of river subject to destruc¬ 
tive floods is practically confined to the portion from Austin to the 
mouth, a distance of about 290 miles. From Austin to Lagrange, a 
distance of 110 miles, the banks are high and the amount of land over¬ 
flowed is comparatively small. Below Lagrange the banks become 
lower, the slope of the river decreases, and, as a consequence, the 
overflows are more frequent and extensive. In the six counties 
between Austin and the mouth there are about 270,000 acres subject 
to overflow. This land is stated to have a present uncertain value 
of $25 per acre, but if protection against floods were assured, it is 
claimed that it would probably be worth at least $100 per acre. On 
230,000 acres of this land it is estimated that there would be a net 
.gain of $11,500,000, after payment of $25 per acre for its protection. 
Conditions at the headwaters of the river and its tributaries suggest 
the use of reservoirs in conjunction with levees as probably the best 
means of flood .control. 

3. No work of improvement has been done on this river by the 
Federal Government since very early times. Under the provisions 
of the river and harbor act of March 2, 1919, a channel 5 feet deep is 
to be dredged by the Government across the bar at the mouth. What 
may be considered the navigable section of the river extends for about 
21 miles above its mouth, and in this section there is a controlling 
depth of 6 feet at low stage. At present there is no commercial 
navigation on the river. The district engineer states that it would 
be possible by the construction of locks and dams, and by cutting and 
maintaining a channel around the raft, to make the river navigable 
from its mouth to Austin, but the cost of the work would be pro¬ 
hibitive. While a system of flood protection might be devised which, 
in addition to protecting agricultural lands, would be of value to 
irrigation and water-power interests, he does not believe that such 
improvement would be of any practical value to navigation, and he 
expresses the opinion that it is not advisable for the United States to 
bear any share of the cost of devising or carrying out such plans at 
the present time. In this opinion the division engineer concurs. 

4. This report has been referred, as required by law, to the Board 
of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, and attention is invited to its 

n; ©f — 


ib 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


3 



to 




3 


report herewith, dated October 14, 1919, concurring in the unfavora¬ 
ble views of the district and division engineers. 

5. After due consideration of the above-mentioned reports, I concur 
in the views of the district engineer, the division engineer, and the 
Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, and therefore report 
that the value to navigation of the flood protection is not sufficient 
to justify the United States in cooperating with the State and other 
communities and interests in devising or carrying out plans for flood 
protection on the Colorado River, Tex. 

Frederic V. Abbot, 

Colonel , Corps of Engineers. 


REPORT OF THE BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS. 

[Third indorsement.] 

The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, 

October 1^, 1919. 

To the Chief of Engineers, United States Army: 

1. The following is in review of the district engineer’s report 
authorized by the river and harbor act of July 27, 1916, on prelimi¬ 
nary examination of Colorado River, Tex., with a view to devising 
plans for flood protection and determining the extent to which the 
United States should cooperate with the States and other communities 
and interests in carrying out such plans, its share being based on the 
value of protection to navigation. 

2. The Colorado River rises in the western part of the State of 
Texas, flows in a southeasterly direction, and empties into Matagorda 
Bay. Its length is about 700 miles and its drainage area 37,800 square 
miles. The section above Coke County is semiarid and sparsely settled. 
Between this section and Austin, a distance of about 330 miles, the 
principal tributaries enter the river. Below Austin the river flows 
through a rolling country until the flat coastal plain near the mouth is 
reached. From mile 35 to mile 40 above the mouth the river is 
completely blocked by the “Big Raft,” an accumulated mass of drift. 
Below this reach there are numerous smaller rafts or piles of drift 
which more or less obstruct the channel. The river is navigable at 
present for a distance of about 21 miles above the mouth, hut no 
commercial use is made of any part of it. Except for some work 
done in the early fifties, of which we have no record, the river has 
not been improved by the United States. The section between the 
mouth and Austin could be made navigable by the construction of 
locks and dams and a by-pass around the raft, but at great cost. 

3. Some of the lowlands adjacent to the river are subject to over¬ 
flow, which occasions considerable damage. Certain farming sections 
have been protected by levees and others are cultivated without pro¬ 
tection, but most of the bottom lands are suitable for cultivation if 
protected. The lowest land immediately adjacent to the river is 
covered with timber and used almost solely at the present time for 
grazing. From the head of the raft to the mouth of the river the chan¬ 
nels are so choked with drift that slight rises cause most of the adjacent 
county to overflow. The town of Bay City is protected by a levee. 
The area subject to overflow below Austin is reported as amounting 



4 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


to about 270,000 acres valued at present at $25 per acre, which, if 
protected, would be worth $100 per acre. 

4. Conditions at the headwaters of the river and its tributaries 
suggest the use of reservoirs in conjunction with levees as probably 
the best means of flood control. The principal interests to be benefited 
by such an improvement are agriculture, power, and navigation, 
probably in order of importance as mentioned. There are several 
local organizations interested in power and irrigation which, with 
certain State departments, might be expected to cooperate with the 
Federal Government if it entered upon this work. 

5. Apparently, the chief benefit to be expected from flood protec¬ 
tion would be to-the agricultural interests. Owing to the irregular 
periods of rainfall and drought it would not be practicable by any 
plan of improvement to entirely equalize the flow, and therefore the 
river could not be depended upon to afford continuous navigation, 
and even if adequate facilities were secured, it appears doubtful if the 
river would be used extensively as a transportation route. The dis¬ 
trict engineer is therefore of opinion that the carrying out of plans for 
the flood protection of the Colorado Kiver would be of no appreciable 
value for the protection of navigation, and that the United States 
should not bear any share of the cost of devising or carrying out such 
plans at the present time. The division engineer concurs in these 
views. 

6. Interested parties were informed of the tenor of the district engi¬ 
neer’s report and given an opportunity of submitting their views, but 
no communications on the subject have been received. 

7. The question at issue is whether the protection of the Colorado 
Valley from floods is of sufficient value to navigation interests to 
justify the Federal Government in cooperating with the State and 
other communities and interests in devising and carrying out the 
necessary plans. The recognized head of feasible navigation is at 
Austin. Between that place and the mouth the river flows through 
a section of country devoted to agriculture and grazing, the latter 
probably predominating. There are no large cities and no mining or 
industrial interests to create a large commerce. There is no naviga¬ 
tion at present and if the river were so improved as to provide ade¬ 
quate facilities, the principal traffic would be in agricultural products 
and such supplies as the sparsely settled territory adjacent might 
require. Experience elsewhere indicates that under these conditions 
the amount of commerce would be very small. It is even doubtful if 
it would be sufficient to justify the operation of a boat line. The 
interests of navigation are, therefore, quite small. 

8. It appears from the data furnished that considerable areas in this 
valley are subject to overflow with consequent material loss, and that 
by suitable works these lands may be protected and their value 
greatly enhanced. Whether the benefits would exceed the cost can 
be determined only by detailed surveys and the preparation of plans 
and estimates which, in the circumstances, should in the opinion of 
the board be done by the State or by a combination of the local 
interests concerned and not by the Federal Government. In view of 
the facts stated above the board concurs in the opinion of the district 
and division engineers that the value to navigation is too small to 
warrant the cooperation of the United States in devising or carrying 
out plans for flood protection. 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


5 


9. In compliance with law, the board reports that there are no 
questions of terminal facilities, water power, or other related subjects 
which could be coordinated with the suggested improvement in such 
manner as to render the work advisable in the interests of commerce 
and navigation. 

For the board: 

W. C. Langfitt, 

Colonel , Corps of Engineers , 

Senior Member of the Board. 


PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 

War Department, 

United States Engineer Office, 

Galveston, Tex., June 30, 1919. 

From: The District Engineer. 

To: The Chief of Engineers, United States Army 
(through the Division Engineer). 

Subject: Preliminary examination of Colorado River, Tex., with a 

view to flood protection. 

1. This preliminary examination was made in compliance with the 
river and harbor act of July 27, 1916, and instructions to the district 
engineer from the Chief of Engineers dated August 9, 1916. The act 
provides as follows: 

* * * Colorado River, Texas, * * * with a view to devising plans for flood 
protection and determining the extent to which the United States should cooperate 
with the State and other communities and interests in carrying out such plans, its 
share being based on the value of protection to navigation. 

2. Mr. Y. E. Lieb, assistant engineer, whose report is forwarded 
herewith, made the actual examination of the river, and has gathered 
data and information in addition to what had been collected pre¬ 
viously by governmental, State, and private efforts. 

previous reports. 

3. No previous examination or survey has been made of the Colo¬ 
rado River with a view to flood protection, but the following exami¬ 
nations and surveys of portions of the river have been made in the 
interest of navigation: 

(a) Survey of Matagorda Bay at the mouth of St. Marys Bayou 
near the town of Matagorda, Tex., Annual Report Chief of Engineers, 
1882, part 2, page 1493. 

( b ) Preliminary examination Colorado River, Tex., with a view to 
removing of raft at mouth of same, Annual Report Chief of Engi¬ 
neers, 1891, part 3, page 1939; report unfavorable. 

(c) Preliminary examination Colorado River, Tex., from the 
mouth to the city of Wharton, Tex., Annual Report Chief of Engi¬ 
neers, 1895, part 3, page 1821; report unfavorable. 

(d) Preliminary examination Colorado River, Tex., from its mouth 
to the foot of the great raft, Annual Report Chief of Engineers, 1900, 
part 4, page 2458; report unfavorable. 



6 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


(e) Preliminary examination for canal 10 feet deep and 100 feet 
wide around the raft in the Colorado River, in Matagorda County, 
Tex.; Annual Report Chief of Engineers, 1900, part 4, page 2461; 
report unfavorable. 

(/) Preliminary examination Matagorda Bay, Tex., with a view to 
obtaining a channel to Matagorda; House Document No. 154, Fifty- 
ninth Congress, first session; report unfavorable. 

(g) Preliminary examination and survey Colorado River, Tex., 
with a view to obtaining a navigable channel from its mouth as far 
up as practicable; House Document No. 1211, Sixtieth Congress, sec¬ 
ond session; report unfavorable. 

(h) Preliminary examination Colorado River, Tex., with a view to 
its improvement by means of locks and dams or otherwise and to the 
taking over by the General Government of the artificial cut to Mata¬ 
gorda; House Document No. 657, Sixty-third Congress, second ses¬ 
sion; report unfavorable. 

(i) Preliminary examination Colorado River, Tex., having in view 
“ the extent of any improvement of said river which may be advisable 
at the present time, and especially with reference to snagging and 
cleaning the river so as to make it available for use as far up as pos¬ 
sible in connection with the inland waterway”; House Rivers and 
Harbors Committee, Document No. 3, Sixty-third Congress, first ses¬ 
sion; report favorable. 

(k) Preliminary examination and survey Colorado River, Tex., 
from its mouth as far up as is practicable, with a view to removing 
the raft, including consideration of any proposition for cooperation 
on the part of local or other interests; section 15, river and harbor act 
of March 4, 1915; report of district engineer dated July 30, 1917, 
recommending survey has, as far as known, not yet been finally 
acted on. 

AVAILABLE DATA. 

4. The United States Geological Survey, in cooperation with the 
State board of water engineers and the United States Weather Bu¬ 
reau, has established gauging stations on the Colorado River and its 
principal tributaries. Published data are available from these de¬ 
partments, and advance information on the 1917 records was supplied 
by the district engineer of the Geological Survey. 

The State board of water engineers, which administers the State 
laws, has gathered data in regard to the use of the water of the river 
and made some studies toward conservancy. 

5. The State reclamation department, in charge of levees and drain¬ 
age, has so far taken no active steps toward securing flood protection, 
other than to cooperate with the Colorado River Improvement 
Association in securing data. 

6. Detailed maps of the entire river valley are lacking; there are, how¬ 
ever, United States Geological maps from the headwaters to Bastrop 
County, general State maps from Bastrop County to Wharton, and 
Engineer Department maps from Wharton to the mouth of the river. 

7. As the necessary information relating to the Colorado River and 
its tributaries above Austin was available from previous State exam¬ 
inations, no additional field examination of this part of the watershed 
was made for the purposes of this report. No detailed survey was 
attempted of the section from Austin to the mouth, but a recon- 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


7 


naissance was made during the months of September and October, 
1917, in which was gathered as much detailed information as possi¬ 
ble, and the conditions were noted affecting flood protection and 
navigation and their relation to other developments. 

GENERAL DESCRIPTION. 

8. The Colorado River traverses almost the entire width of Texas; 
rising in the western part of the State near the Texas-New Mexico 
line and flowing in a southeasterly direction, it finally empties into 
Matagorda Bay on the Gulf of Mexico. The length of the river is 
approximately 700 miles and it has a drainage area of 37,800 square 
miles, part of which extends into the State of New Mexico. From its 
source to Coke County the river flows through the semiarid plains 
section of the State, which is sparsely settled and used principally for 
grazing purposes. At Ballinger the river enters what is known as the 
mountain region, formed by the limestone buttes of the Balcones 
Escarpment, and emerges at Austin, about 330 miles below; its prin¬ 
cipal tributaries join the river in this section. Below Austin the 
river follows a winding course through the rolling country of central 
Texas, until near its mouth it flows through the flat coastal plain 
that borders the Gulf. From mile 35 to mile 40 the river is entirely 
blocked by what is known as the “Big Raft,” a huge mass of drift 
completely filling the river, while from mile 8 to mile 35 numerous 
smaller old rafts obstruct the channel in various places. 

TRIBUTARIES. 

9. The principal tributaries of the Colorado are: The Pedernales 
River, 108 miles long with a catchment area of 1,300 square miles; the 
Llano River, 165 miles long with catchment area of 4,460 square 
miles; the San Saba River, 130 miles long with catchment area of 
3,150 square miles; the Concho River, 225 miles long with catchment 
area of 10,000 square miles and Pecan Bayou, 110 miles long with 
catchment area of 2,130 square miles. There are in addition a num¬ 
ber of minor tributaries, which, being short and with small drainage 
areas, only contribute flood water to the river after very heavy rains. 

THE RIVER BELOW AUSTIN. 

10. At Austin the tops of the banks are some 40 or 50 feet above 
low water and the channel section is sufficiently large to carry all but 
the heaviest floods. The bed contains large quantities of sand and 
gravel which form bars and other channel constrictions, but they 
decrease in quantity lower down the river. 

11. From Austin to Lagrange there is less flooded area than in the 
lower stretches of the river, the banks being higher and more abrupt. 
Although there is some valuable land subject to overflow, the prin¬ 
cipal damage is done by the banks undercutting and caving in the 
bends. The local overflows are caused by abrupt rapids with narrow 
channels below, backing up the water and not permitting free discharge. 

12. In the vicinity of Lagrange the river has a flatter gradient, and 
the channel has less area of cross section than above Lagrange or 
below Columbus, due to the banks decreasing in height and drawing 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX, 


$ 

^closer together. This feature is one of the primary causes of the 
large number of overflows along this section; when they occur, the 
water covers a large area, as the flood plain is wide. During the 1913 
flood the town of Lagrange, which is at an elevation of 40 or 50 feet 
.-above low water in the river, was inundated to a depth of about 4 
feet. 

13. From Austin to the Travis County line the catchment area is 
in a high state of cultivation, the soil being a heavy black gumbo, 
which, when dry, absorbs a large quantity of water and is not subject 
to erosion to the same extent as some of the lighter soils found along 
the river at other places. Below the Travis County line the greater 
portion of the country is under cultivation, but a number of the older 
iarms are being ruined by erosion due to the practice of drawing the 
furrows up and down hill. The sand bars in the river here and below 
.are traceable to this fact, as the soil is a light sandy loam with a high 
.moisture storage capacity and erodes very easily. The soil adjacent 
jto the river is a rich chocolate-colored alluvium, somewhat course in 
the upper reaches, but increasing in fineness and quantity further 
•downstream. 

14. At Columbus the gradient of the stream increases, the channel 
becomes more tortuous with numerous and increasing impediments 
"to navigation, consisting principally of snag beds and shifting sand 
bars. There is abundance of evidence that this area is subject to 
•overflow. Some levees have been built, and certain areas of bottom 
land are cultivated without flood protection, but most of the bottom 
land is covered with timber and is used only for grazing, though it 
Is excellent land for cultivation and could all be used for this purpose 
if protection against floods were assured. These conditions continue 
down as far as Wharton. 

15. At Wharton the banks are from 15 to 20 feet above low water, 
decreasing rapidly in height until the region affected by the raft is 
reached. 

16. From the head of the raft to near the mouth of the river all 
-channels are choked with drift, channel changes being frequent, and 
slight rises in the river cause floods over the entire country in this 
region. A levee has been built to protect the town of Bay City, 
but the bottom lands have been abandoned for grazing purposes. 

THE BIG RAFT. 

17. The most prominent feature of the lower river is the big raft, 
■which is an enormous collection of snags and driftwood brought down 
by the river and completely filling its bed from bank to bank. The 
formation of this raft began "about the year 1857 near the mouth of 
the river, and it has continued steadily to progress up stram at a 
rate of approximately 3,000 feet per year, maintaining a- constant 
length of about 5 miles. It is not definitely known whether the 
nucleus was due to artificial or natural causes. 

18. The head of the raft is constantly being added to by drift, 
;some of it brought down by the river from above, but much of it 
noming from trees in the neighborhood which are killed by the back¬ 
water from the raft acting as a dam. The river would form new 
channels around the raft which in turn would become filled with 
drift. The entire topography and condition of the surrounding 



COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


9 


country have been altered so that it is now useless for any purpose 
except for occasional grazing during very dry seasons. In some 
sections, parts of the raft exposed to alternate wetting and drying, 
rot out and are washed away, hut the parts under water with a 
covering of silt remain, forming a permanent obstruction. 

19. The State and some private interests have cut new channels 
-around parts of the raft, but these have all become choked, and the 
raft to-day constitutes an increasing menace to the property and 
safety of the residents of the region during times of flood and a 
hindrance to the development of a rich agricultural region. 

NAVIGATION. 

20. Before the Civil War, while the country was being settled, 
boats made regular trips up the river as far as Lagrange, and under 
favorable conditions as far as Austin. After the Civil War vhen 
the railroads were built and the raft had formed at the mouth of the 
river, the boats were gradually abandoned. It is said that some of 
the boats used were of sufficient capacity to carry 500 bales of cotton 
at a trip. At present there is no commercial navigation on the river, 
which is in such a condition, due to snags, sand bars, and shoals, 
that it would be impossible for boats even of very small cargo capac¬ 
ity to make a trip over it. On the pool above the raft, about Whar¬ 
ton, there are a few small launches and houseboats used for pleasure. 

21. No work of improvement has been done on the river by the 
Federal Government since very early times. The river and harbor 
act, approved August 30, 1852, contained an item of 820,000 for the 
'‘Improvement of the navigation of the Colorado River, Texas,” 
but it is not known (to this office) how this was expended. A 
channel across the bar at the mouth has been excavated and redredged 
several times within the last few years by private parties but has 
always refilled rapidly with driftwood and silt. Under the pro¬ 
visions of the river and harbor act approved March 3, 1919, a channel 
5 feet deep is to be redredged by the Government across the bar at the 
mouth of the river. 

22. What may be considered the navigable section of the river at 
present extends for about 21 miles above its mouth. In this section 
the controlling depths are as follows: At low stage, 6 feet; mean stage, 
7 feet; and at average high stage, 9 feet. The extreme fluctuation 
of the water surface is about 15 feet. Only one bridge is found in 
this section; this is a fixed span steel county highway bridge at mile 
8J, which has a clear width between piers of 137 feet, and a clear 
height of 17 feet at mean low water. The slope in this section is 
about 1.43 feet per mile. There are numerous snags and overhanging 
trees, the banks are badly eroded in places and there are several 
remains of old rafts, the channels around which are narrow, so that 
although the depth is good navigation is difficult. 

23. It would be possible by the construction of locks and dams 
along the river, and by cutting and maintaining a channel around 
the raft, to make the river navigable from its mouth to Austin, but 
at such a cost as to be prohibitive. Relative commercial statistics, 
and an approximate profile of the river between the mouth and 
Austin, are included in the accompanying report. 


10 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


FLOOD AND NORMAL STAGES AND DISCHARGES. 

24. Stage and discharge data for the Colorado River at Columbus 
and Austin are available from the published records of the United 
States Geological Survey and the United States Weather Bureau. 
During 1915 the United States Geological Survey entered into a 
cooperative agreement with the State board of water engineers, and 
six additional gaging stations on the Colorado River and nine on the 
principal tributaries were installed and are being operated, exten¬ 
sions being planned and installed as fast as funds become available. 

25. From all records prior to 1915 the maximum discharge at 
Austin is estimated at 231,000 cubic feet per second, the minimum 
at about zero, and the average at 1,250 cubic feet per second. At 
Columbus the maximum discharge during the 1913 flood is estimated 
from the available records at 60,000 cubic feet per second, which 
appears low, the minimum at 10 cubic feer per second, and the 
average at 2,284 cubic feet per second, which appears high. 

26. Flood discharges at Austin are high and of short duration, 
the stage fluctuating with the arrival and passage of the peaks of 
flood waves from the tributary headwaters, these being at present 
regulated to some extent by the dam just above Austin. 

27. Between Austin and Columbus the consolidated flood waters- 
spread out over the bottoms and are retarded, with a consequent 
decreased discharge of longer duration at Columbus. The flood 
stage at Columbus is higher than at Austin, but it is attained by a 
much smaller discharge; consequently damaging floods there are 
more frequent. 

28. From a study of discharge records in conjunction with precipi¬ 
tation and watershed, it is evident that the principal origin of these 
floods is traceable to the mountain region between Austin and 
Ballinger. This region, composed of rough limestone ridges, tim¬ 
bered but with a thin soil, merges to the westward into the high 
plateau of the plains and receives a lesser rainfall than the region 
below Austin, but it is of greater extent, and all conditions tend 
toward a rapid run-off of storm water. Rains on this portion of the 
watershed occur mainly during the spring and fall months, and are 
torrential. 

29. The watershed above Ballinger contributes flood waters only 
after heavy general rains, which are rare, and the resulting flood peaks- 
are retarded and dissipated before reaching the lower river. 

30. The watershed between Austin and the mouth of the river 
receives the greatest and most frequent rainfall, but is of relatively 
small area. The topography being flat and the soil deep and of 
great absorptive capacity, the conditions generally are productive 
of a slow escape of storm water to the river. Long continued heavy 
rains on this part of the watershed may raise the river to bank-full 
stages, but unless floods from the headwaters are added it is not 
relieved that disastrous floods result. 

31. Records of great historic floods at Austin, as published by the- 
United States Geological Survey, are as follows: February, 1843, 36 
feet; March, 1852, 36 feet: July, 1869, 43 feet; October, 1870, 36 feet: 
June, 1899, 23 feet; April, 1900,33 feet. The flood of 1869 submerged 
the lower parts of Austin and Webberville, both built on high bluffs. 
During the 1900 flood the dam at Austin failed at an estimated dis- 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


11 


charge of 133,000 cubic feet per second. The greatest flood of which 
any accurate history is available is that of December, 1913. This 
was the result of continued heavy rains throughout the watershed, 
when floods from the headwaters united with local high water below 
Austin and caused the most extensive flood of record. Stages at 
Austin were not as high as during other great floods, as the flood 
peaks from the different headwaters passed there in a succession of 
waves, and the consolidation of these peaks took place below, probably 
at about Bastrop, resulting in high flood stages at Columbus of ex¬ 
ceptional duration. Floods at this time occured in nearly all the 
Texas rivers; The Brazos, which at its mouth is a little over 40 miles 
from the Colorado, rose to such an extent that the waters of the two 
streams united for a distance of 40 to 50 miles above their mouths. 

32. The damage caused by the various floods in the river counties 
of Travis, Bastrop, Fayette, Colorado, Wharton, and Matagorda, 
from 1900 to 1913, inclusive, has been estimated to aggregate 
$60,000,000, details of which are given in the accompanying report. 
There are classed as overflow lands in these counties 235,494 acres, 
but in addition there are lands subject to overflow that are listed as 
grazing lands, these bringing the total to approximately 270,000 
acres. This land is stated to have a present uncertain value of $25 
per acre, but if protection against floods were assured it is claimed that 
it would probably be worth at least $100 per acre. 

FLOOD PROTECTION BY LEVEES. 

33. One solution of the flood problem is to construct levees along 
both banks of the river. With the exception of a few localities above 
Lagrange, the levee system proper should begin at that town and 
extend to the mouth of the river. There are included in this section 
high bluff banks that do not need protection, but offer good starting 
and ending places for the levees. In the vicinity of Bay City, flood 
protection is an immediate need, and for quick relief from danger of 
floods levees offer the most feasible plan. The system for the section 
from Lagrange to the mouth, with levees on both sides of the river, 
would necessitate the construction of about 320 miles of levees. 

FLOOD PROTECTION BY STORAGE AND DETENTION RESERVOIRS. 

34. As the origin of the principal flood secretions to the Colorado 
River is in the mountain watershed, the opporunity is favorable for 
flood regulation by a system of reservoirs in the mountains above 
Austin. Such a system, in conjunction with levees at certain places 
below Austin, would seem to offer excellent prospects for a successful 
solution of the flood problem, provided the cost proves to be reason¬ 
able and other benefits could also be derived from the stored waters. 
Favorable dam and reservoir sites are to be found at a number of 
places where conditions as to foundations and local construction 
material are good, and where the land to be submerged is of small 
value for other purposes; the sites are described in detail in the ac¬ 
companying report. 

35. While the interests of storage for the regulation of low-water 
discharge in connection with the beneficial use of the water, and those 
of storage for flood protection, are as a rule conflicting, it may be 


12 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


possible in this instance to devise a system that will successfully 
serve both purposes. There is strong demand for more constant flow 
in the lower river by the rice growers for irrigation, and these interests 
would probably cooperate to a large extent in any plan promising 
a more dependable flow during irrigation season. Power devel¬ 
opment and the supplying of water to adjacent communities might 
also prove important functions of some of the reservoirs. A dam 
designed to meet the combined requirements would involve the 
division and management of the storage space in the reservoir accord¬ 
ing to use. The portion reserved for flood protection storage would 
be emptied as soon as possible after each flood in order to provide 
room for the next one, while that set aside for beneficial use would 
be kept filled until needed and then emptied at the desired rate. 

36. The United States Reclamation Service has built several dams 
that not only serve their primary purpose of storing water for irriga¬ 
tion, but also act as detention reservoirs for flood control. The most 
prominent of these are the Kachess and Keechelus reservoirs at the 
head of the Yakima River in Washington, and the Elephant Butte 
Reservoir in the Rio Grande in New Mexico. In the September, 1917, 
number of the Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers 
is found a paper on “ Detention reservoirs with spillway outlets as 
an agency in flood control” by Gen. H. M. Chittenden, which is an 
able discussion of the combination reservoirs. 

37. The Colorado River at normal stage does not carry much silt, 
but during floods large quantities are transported, and due attention 
would have to be given to this feature in the planning of reservoirs. 

RESERVOIR SITES. 

38. Reservoirs for flood protection in the Colorado River alone 
should be located below the mouths of the principal mountain trib¬ 
utaries, the lowest of which is the Pedernales River. Between the 
mouth of the Pedernales River and the head of the backwater from 
the present Austin dam, there is a choice of three available dam and 
reservoir sites where storage capacities of approximately 11,000,000,- 
000 cubic feet, 28,000,000,000 cubic feet and 18,000,000,000 cubic 
feet, respectively, could be developed. At these locations the foun¬ 
dations are good, construction materials abundant, and the land to 
be submerged is of small value, but the sites possess the disadvantages 
of being inaccessible and of the reservoirs being liable to silting. 

39. There are other sites above these that are available and that 
are also below the mouth of the Pedernales River, but they have 
been filed on by. private interests, while some otherwise excellent 
sites near Marble Falls would submerge the towns and railroads of 
that section, and interfere with prior rights of power development. 
A description of the features and conditions of these sites in the 
Colorado River, with their advantages and disadvantages, is to be 
found in the accompanying report. 

40. Another favorable site for a dam is found higher up the Colorado 
River near the corner of Burnet and San Saba Counties, where 25,000,- 
000,000 cubic feet of storage could be developed; this would control 
floods in the San Saba and Concho Rivers, Pecan Bayou, and 
Colorado River headwaters, while to control the floods of the Ped¬ 
ernales arid Llano Rivers below, dams in these two streams would 
have to be built. 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


13 


41. The only reservoir at present on the Colorado River is the one 
at Austin, huilt by the city for water supply and power purposes; it 
has a storage capacity of about 3,000,000,000 cubic feet, with a 
height of clam of 70 feet. 

42. To supplement reservoirs on the Colorado River, or as parts of 
a separate system, dams to store flood waters could be located near 
the lower end of each of the principal tributaries. Such a system of 
reservoirs might be found to possess advantages. It would involve 
structures in the principal tributaries as follows: 

43. Pedemales River .—The Pedernales River offers good reservoir 
sites near its mouth and at points several miles above, thus allowing 
a dam to be put above backwater that might be caused by dams in 
the Colorado; this backwater, it is thought, would not reach farther 
up this tributary than 3 miles. One of the best locations for a storage 
reservoir is apparently at a point about half a mile below the mouth 
of Flat Head Creek, with a capacity of nearly 2,000,000,000 cubic feet, 
where the land to be submerged is of low value for other purposes, 
the foundations are good, and materials of construction abundant 
and of good quality. This river does not bear silt in very large quan¬ 
tities, and would not fill a reservoir very fast. The greatest disad¬ 
vantage of the sites on this tributary is their distance from a railroad, 
the nearest being at Austin 25 or 30 miles away, but all can be reached 
by good highwa} r s. 

44. Llano River .—A favorable site is to be had about 3 miles 
northwest of Ivingsland, with good foundations and with an abun¬ 
dance of building material of excellent quality near by. A concrete 
dam 60 feet high with a storage capacity of about 1,500,000,000 
cubic feet can be built here at a low cost, as there is a railroad 
adjacent to the site. The Llano River does not carry much silt, 
and a reservoir would probably retain its maximum capacity indefi¬ 
nitely. 

45. San Saba River .—About the only site to be had on this river 
is at the lower end of a canyon cutting through a range of hills at what 
is known as the “Narrows/’ 15 miles southwest of the town of San 
Saba. Here a dam 90 feet high will give a basin capacity of 5,500,- 
000,000 cubic feet. At this site favorable conditions for con¬ 
struction are found, such as good foundations, plenty of good building 
material, the land to be submerged is of low value for other purposes, 
and railroad facilities are within 10 miles. This site has been filed 
on by private interests, but no construction has yet been attempted. 
Detention of floods at this point would provide protection to an im¬ 
portant valley adjacent to San Saba, at present subject to occasional 
inundation. Other sites are to be had farther up stream, but these 
would not catch the contributions from the principal tributaries. 

46. Concho River .—During this examination no favorable site of 
large capacity was found on this river, but there are a number of 
small capacity that could be used only for the detention of flood 
water; upon closer investigation sites for reservoirs of larger storage 
capacity might be found. There are at the sites examined good 
building material in quantity and good foundations for structures, 
with railroad facilities at San Angelo and Paint Rock, and good high¬ 
ways leading from these places to the river. 

47. Pecan Bayou .—During this examination no site of large capac¬ 
ity was found in Pecan Bayou and this stream does not offer as good 


14 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


conditions as the other tributaries for the construction of reservoirs. 
The land along the bayou is of high value, and building conditions 
are not favorable. It may be found that no protective works are 
needed on this river because it acts to some extent as a natural reser¬ 
voir, and the discharges of flood waters are slow. In the event of 
further consideration of flood control on this stream, a more detailed 
examination should be made. 

LOCAL COOPERATION. 

48. Along the Colorado River, especially in the lower part, there 
are several organizations interested in power development, naviga¬ 
tion, flood control, and irrigation. The most active and largest is 
the Colorado River Improvement Association, whose membership is 
made up principally of the landowners adjacent to the river in Travis, 
Bastrop, Fa} r ette, Colorado, Wharton, and Matagorda Counties. 
The rice growers have an organization primarily interested in getting 
more water during the dry season for irrigating their rice crops. 
The commissioners’ courts in the counties traversed by the river have, 
through the activities of these organizations, offered aid to the Federal 
Government in the event that any improvement is undertaken. 
There has also been adopted recently an amendment to the State 
Constitution, whereby several counties may organize improvement 
districts for issuing the necessary bonds to finance improvements. 
The active cooperation of the State board of water engineers and the 
State reclamation department could also be expected. 

TERMINAL FACILITIES. 

49. At present there are no wharves or other terminal facilities on 
the river, with the exception of one or two small boat landings. 

SURVEYS. 

50. There can be no doubt as to the necessity for protection against 
floods in the section of the Colorado River below Lagrange, especially 
in the vicinity of the raft. To arrive at a definite conclusion as to 
whether levees or storage reservoirs or combinations of the two are 
the most feasible, a detailed survey would have to be made of most 
of the river valley from the mouth as far as the uppermost proposed 
detention dam and for some distance up each of the large tribu¬ 
taries. In the portion affected by the raft, enough territory should 
be included on each side of the river, extending if necessary into 
adjacent cachements, to enable a complete study to be made of a 
scheme for diverting the river around the raft. From above the 
raft to West Point in Bastrop County, at which place the United 
States Geological maps become available, the flood plan should be 
covered with an accurate survey with close contour intervals. From 
West Point to Austin' the United States Geological Survey maps 
give most of the data needed and flood protection surveys need 
be made only where it is evident that the bottom land overflows, and 
the maps do not show enough detail. All these survej^s should 
be accurate enough to allow for the proper location of any proposed 
structures, with estimates of cost. 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


15 


51. The dam and reservoir sites should be surveyed with sufficient 
detail to enable designs of structures, computation of the capacities 
of basins, and estimates of cost to be made in each case, for the pur¬ 
pose of determining the relative costs and advantages of the different 
svstems of flood control. It is believed that all the surveys mentioned 
should be made by local interests. 

52. The Colorado River system is being well gauged hydrographi- 
cally by the U. S. Geological Survey and the State Board of Water 
Engineers, and no further work of this kind appears necessary, other 
than the compilation of the data secured by them. 

CONCLUSION. 

53. According to a statement of the Colorado River Improvement 
Association dated August 31, 1915, the fertile flood plain of the river 
when permanently protected from overflows is worth $100 per acre, 
while in the unprotected state “it may be bought for $25 per acre, 
and the real value is doubtful.” They estimated that flood protec¬ 
tion could be obtained at a cost of about $25 per acre, and that in the 
lower part of the valley alone there are not less than 230,000 acres 
of this rich land which, if protected at this cost, would have their 
value increased $75 per acre, giving a total estimated net gain to the 
landholders of $11,500,000. In addition to increasing the value of 
the river lands to this large extent, the system of flood protection 
might, as already stated, be so designed as to be of great value to the 
irrigation interests and to provide important power developments 
and also possibly supplies of water to adjacent communities. There 
can be no doubt then that plans for flood protection, if properly de¬ 
signed and carried out, would greatly benefit the State and other 
communities and interests along the Colorado River, but it is not 
believed that they would be of any practical value to navigation. 

54. Periods both of rain and of drought occur at such irregular 
intervals in the catchment area and are so variable in extent that any 
system of flood protection, whether by levees or by storage reservoirs 
or by a combination of the two, would only partially equalize the flpw 
of water in the river but would not insure a steady and sufficient flow 
for navigation at all times. River traffic which has to depend on the 
stage of the stream is too unreliable and costly to compote with rail¬ 
roads except under special and unusual conditions. 

55. Even if a steady flow were assured in the river at all seasons, 
a 5-foot draft would be the limit of possible navigation at present, 
since that is the project depth of the Intracoastal Canal, the only 
available outlet of Matagorda Bay into which the Colorado River 
empties. With a 5-foot limiting depth no navigation worthy of 
the name w 1 develop over any appreciable stretch of the river. 

56. It is p< ible that the future may see an increase in the depth 
of the Tntracoastal Canal to 8 or 9 feet. Even if in that case the flood 
protection plans could, a t a reasonable cost, be made to assure a simi¬ 
lar depth in the lower Cob rado River, it is doubtful whether any 
important amount of navigation would result under present condi¬ 
tions. Consider the analogous case of the Brazos River, a stream 
which flows not far from the Colorado and which bears many points 
of resemblance to the latter. The mouths of the two rivers are only 


16 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


a little over 40 miles apart, for a considerable distance above their 
mouths they flow in almost parallel directions, their drainage areas 
are about the same, both are subject to heavy floods and both traverse 
rich agricultural lands. For a number of years the Brazos has had 
a navigable depth of from 8 to 11 feet at low water for 48 miles above 
its mouth and an improved harbor at the latter carrying about 18 
feet. Yet with all these favorable conditions there has been practi¬ 
cally no traffic on the river above the mouth until within the last few 
months, when the discovery and development of an oil field at West 
Columbia (near mile 35) started a movement of oilbarges on the river. 
It is doubtful whether even this will continue after the oil companies 
have completed the pipe lines which they are building to the field. 

57. The Brazos Valley is well provided with railroad facilities. 
The valley of the Colorado below Austin, the head of possiblo naviga¬ 
tion, is similarly favored; a line of railway parallels the river through¬ 
out practically its entire length in this section while numerous other 
lines cross the valley. Under these circumstances navigation on the 
river could compete successfully with the railroads only under excep¬ 
tionally favorable conditions, such as could not be obtained from any 
feasible system of flood protection. 

58. For the reasons stated, it is not believed that the carrying out 
of plans for the flood protection of the Colorado River, Tex., would 
be of any appreciable value for the protection of navigation, and it is 
therefore not recommended that the United States bear any share of 
the cost of devising or carrying out such plans at the present time. 

INCLOSURES. 

59. There is transmitted herewith the report of Mr. V. E. Lieb,. 
assistant engineer, with its accompanying maps and photographs. 

Spencer Cosby, 

Colonel , Corps of Engineers. 

[First, indorsement.] 

Office of Division Engineer, Gulf Division, 

New Orleans , Z«., September 15 , 1919. 

To the Chief of Engineers, United States Army : 

1. Forwarded. 

2. The Colorado River was inspected by the division engineer Sep¬ 
tember 3 to 6,1919, at Austin, Bastrop, Lagrange, Glidden, Columbus, 
and Wharton. 

3. The river has been the subject of a number of previous reports, 
almost all of which have been unfavorable to its improvement for 
navigation. The present report is the first one made with a view to 
flood protection. 

4. The section of the river subject to destructive floods is practi¬ 
cally confined to the portion from Austin to the mouth, a distance of 
about 290 miles. For 110 miles, from Austin to Lagrange, the banks 
are high and the amount of land overflowed is comparatively small. 
Below Lagrange the banks become lower and the slope of tiie river 
decreases, and as a consequence the overflows are more frequent and. 
extensive. 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


17 


5. The records at Austin show that eight notable floods have been 
observed there, beginning with 1S43. The greatest recorded flood 
was the last one, in 1913, when the maximum discharge at Austin was 
estimated at 231,000 cubic feet per second. The discharge at Austin 
in 1900, during the flood that caused the breaking of the Austin dam, 
was estimated at 133,000 cubic feet per second. The minimum dis¬ 
charge at Austin is about zero, and the average is estimated at 1,828 
cubic feet per second. At Columbus, 150 miles below Austin, the 
maximum discharge is estimated at 60,000, the minimum at about 
zero, and the average at 2,284 cubic feet per second. The low figure 
for the maximum at Columbus, as compared with Austin, is accounted 
for by the fact that below Austin the river spreads out and the flood 
waters are retarded. The floods are, therefore, of much longer dura¬ 
tion at Columbus than at Austin. In addition to the great floods 
coming at an average of about 10 years apart, there are lesser floods 
that occur almost every year and cause property losses of hundreds 
of thousands of dollars. 

6. Near the mouth of the river the flow is governed chiefly by the 
“raft.” This obstruction has choked all channels with drift to such 
an extent that every considerable rise in the river floods the entire 
region. 

7. The flood conditions in the other sections of the river are gov¬ 
erned largely by the discharge from the tributaries. They discharge 
rapidly, and when the flood peaks from a number of them coincide 
in the main stream the result is a disastrous overflow. 

8. The methods of flood control applicable to this stream are 
levee construction in the lower section from Lagrange to the mouth, 
and reservoir construction in the upper river and the tributaries. 
Levee construction should present no special difficulties. The prin¬ 
cipal question is whether the enhanced value of the protected land will 
warrant the expenditure for the levees. A number of sites for reser¬ 
voirs are noted in the report of the assistant engineer who examined 
the river. The reservoirs, in addition to affording flood protection, 
may also serve to store water for irrigation and power. The Austin 
dam creates a reservoir of about 75,000 acre-feet capacity, primarily 
for power purposes, but also capable of use for the control of floods, 
although its capacity would be exhausted in a few hours by the water 
flowing in such floods as those of 1900 and 1913. 

9. The river may be considered as navigable for about 21 miles 
from the mouth, where there is a low-water channel 6 feet in depth. 
Above this section, the snags and shoals, and particularly the raft, 
obstruct the river to an extent prohibiting navigation. There is no 
commercial navigation on the stream. From Bastrop to the mouth 
there is a line of railroad practically all the way, parallel and close to 
the river. In addition, each of the six river counties, Travis, Bastrop, 
Fayette, Colorado, Wharton, and Matagorda, has one or more lines 
of railroad intersecting the river. Consequently, there is a very small 
percentage of the area of these six counties to which the river is more 
accessible than the railroad. 

10. It is considered feasible, by a system of locks and dams, com¬ 
bined with dredging and snagging, to create a navigable channel 
from the mouth to Austin. Such a plan wxmlel probably have to 

H. Doc. 304, 66-1-2 


18 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


include cutting a channel around the raft. The cost of such an im¬ 
provement is not considered to be warranted by the commercial needs 
of the territory along the river. 

11. I concur in the opinion of the district engineer that the interest 
of the United States in the navigation of the Colorado River, Texas, 
is not sufficient to warrant any cooperation by the Government in 
the preparation or execution of plans for flood protection. 

Herbert Deakyne, 

Lieutenant Colonel, Corps oj Engineers, 

Division Engineer. 

[For report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, 
see p. 3.] 


REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER. 

United States Engineer Office, 

Galveston, Tex., November 30, 1917. 

From: V. E. Lieb, assistant engineer. 

To: The district engineer officer, Galveston, Tex. 

Subject : Report on preliminary examination of Colorado River, Tex., flood protection. 

1. Authority .—This preliminary investigation was made in compliance with the 
Rivers and Harbors Act of July 27, 1916, and instructions to the District Engineer 
Officer from the Chief of Engineers dated August 9, 1916. The act provides as 
follows: Colorado River, Tex., * * * with a view to devising plans for flood 
protection and determining the extent to which the United States should cooperate 
with the States and other communities and interests in carrying out such plans, its 
share being based on the value of protection to navigation. 

2. Problem .—The problem presented is to determine consistently and accurately 
with the means at hand the practical methods for protection against flood damage, 
and the influence of such upon navigation, and including the other interests and 
industries affected by any scheme of river improvement. 

3. Scope .—The scope of this report is necessarily limited to ‘the compilation of 
existing data and securing such additional information as may be obtained by recon¬ 
naissance without the aid of detailed surveys. It is intended to cover the entire 
watershed of the stream with attention to characteristics of topography, soil, cover, 
and rainfall, in their relation to stream discharge; the occurrence, origin, extent, and 
duration of floods; damage, direct and indirect to crops, towns, and industries; the 
detriment to navigation and other interests caused by the formation of the “raft”; 
and the recommendation of means toward correcting these conditions. 

4. General description of the Colorado River, Tex .—The Colorado River has its sources 
in the extreme western part of Texas, although the watershed extends into New Mexico; 
follows a general southeasterly course across the State of Texas for about 700 miles; 
enters Matagorda Bay, an arm of the Gulf of Mexico, in the southern part of Matagorda 
County. Total area of watershed, 37,800 square miles; of this, 3,600 square miles 
lies between Matagorda and Austin, 27,740 square miles between Austin and Ballinger, 
and 6,460 square miles above Ballinger. Precipitation varies from 10 inches in the 
northwestern part of the catchment, to 55 inches near the coast. 

From its sources to Coke County the river traverses a semiarid plains country and 
carries very little water except immediately after infrequent heavy rains. Between 
Bronte and Ballinger the flow begins to increase, augmented by springs in the bed. 
Below Ballinger the river enters a series of gorges carved through the remnantal lime¬ 
stone buttes of the Balcones Escarpment or “mountain region” through which it 
flows for about 330 miles, emerging at Austin. In the mountains the river gathers 
in size both from springs in its bed, and the accretions from tributaries, all its tribu¬ 
taries of any importance entering here. 

Below Austin the river follows a winding channel through the rolling country of 
Central Texas to the flat coastal plains near the gulf. The height of its banks decreases 
gradually and the flood plain increases in width. 

About 45 miles above the mouth the “raft,” a huge collection of drift, completely 
blocks the stream, and channel changes are constantly going on. 

The principal tributaries of the Colorado River are all included within the region 
between Austin and Ballinger. These are the Pedernales, Llano, San Saba, and Con¬ 
cho Rivers, and Pecan Bayou, and are in themselves of sufficient extent to warrant 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


19 


separate descriptions. Aside from the tributaries named, the Colorado has few other 
direct tributaries of any considerable length. Between the mouth and Austin, exclu¬ 
sive of small watercourses known as “branches,” tributaries and their lengths are: 
Cummins Creek, 37 miles; Big Sandy Creek, 21 miles; Onion Creek, 59 miles; Pin Oak 
Creek, 18 miles; and Walnut Creek, 59 miles; discharge of these is small and inter¬ 
mittent. Between Austin and Ballinger, exclusive of the principal tributary systems, 
there are: Cherokee Creek, 34 miles; Barton Creek, 38 miles; Elm Creek, 26 miles; 
Home Creek, 30 miles; and Sandy Creek, 38 miles; all of small and intermittent dis¬ 
charge. There are in addition numerous small spring-fed creeks, mostly with very 
small watersheds. No record or da,ta of normal or flood discharges of minor tributaries 
is available, and only a general knowledge of their other characteristics. 

5. Subdivision for study .—Bor the purposes of this study the watershed is divided 
into five sections according to natural features and local interests involved in improve¬ 
ment work. These sections, features, and local interests are: From Matagorda to Co¬ 
lumbus,flood protection, the “raft,”irrigation, and navigation, all of equal and prime 
importance. From Columbus to Lagrange; flood protection, navigation, power, and 
irrigation, in the order named. From Lagrange to Austin; navigation, power;, flood 
protection, and irrigation. From Austin to Ballinger; origin of floods, storage for power 
and irrigation, and storage and detection works for flood protection of the valley below 
Austin. Ballinger to the head of the stream for the purposes of this report may be 
considered negligible. 

6. Data available .—From Matagorda to West Point in Bastrop County there are no 
accurate continuous detail maps of the river available. At the “raft ” the War Depart¬ 
ment has made some surveys; with the exception of this map and some private surveys 
for canal headings, nothing better than the large general maps of the State could be 
had. A general map of the State prepared by Mr. Robert T. Hill and published by 
the United States Geological Survey (now out of print and very few copies in exist¬ 
ence) was used for river distances and watershed areas; this map has approximate 
topography, and is the most accurate known at present. From West Point in Bastrop 
County, to above Ballinger, with the exception of a few gaps, the watershed area is 
covered by the United States Geological Survey topographic maps. River distances 
and watershed areas are taken from and checked against the manuscript of the Gazetteer 
of Texas Streams now being published by the United States Geological Survey in 
cooperation with the State Board of Water Engineers. River discharges, stage records, 
and data on irrigation and power projects were obtained from the United States Geolog¬ 
ical Survey, State Board of Water Engineers, and the data on inundated areas, flood 
damages, freight tonnage, and previous navigation, had been compiled and incor¬ 
porated in a report on the subject by Mr. A. A. Stiles, State Reclamation Engineer 
(levees and drainage), and Mr. W. E. Long, Secretary of the Colorado River Improve¬ 
ment Association. 

7. Field work .—On account of the writer’s study of and familiarity with the Colorado 
River and tributaries above Austin, during his previous connection with the State 
Board of Water Engineers, further investigation of this section of the stream was not 
deemed necessary. 

For the purpose of securing as detailed a knowledge as possible of conditions between 
Austin and the mouth of the river, a reconnaissance by boat was made during Septem¬ 
ber and October, 1917, through this section as far as the “raft,” and from there contin¬ 
ued on foot and by autumobile. No attempt at a detailed survey was made, but an 
examination noting conditions affecting flood protection, navigation and their relation 
to other developments, was made as closely as consistent. Land owners and officials 
were interviewed, photographs taken, and approximate measurements made where 
needed. 

8. Conditions between Austin and Matagorda .—At Austin the river emerges from the 
canyon section of the mountain country and enters the rolling country of Central Texas, 
following a winding southeasterly course through a gradually widening valley to its 
mouth. 

At Austin the elevation of low-water surface is about 422 feet above sea level. The 
banks are about 40 to 50 feet above this elevation, and the channel ample to carry all 
but the largest floods, even these causing but slight damage. Natural river debris 
consisting of sand and gravel brought down by the swift currents through the canyon 
section above, is as to be expected, present in large quantities. These deposits gradu¬ 
ally decrease farther downstream in both size and amount, as attrition reduces the 
components to sizes more easily transported by the current. As a consequence of 
this abundance of gravel detritus, riffles, channel obstructions, and constrictions are 
frequent. 

From Austin to Lagrange the banks are abrupt and bottom land not as predominant 
as along the lower reaches of the valley, while there is here some valuable land subject 


20 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


to overflow, the principal damage to agricultural interests is the undercutting and cav¬ 
ing of banks by the current in bends of the river. Current deflectors have recently 
been installed by land owners in several localities, and are apparently efficient at 
ordinary stages, but of what benefit at high stages has not yet been proven. 

About 12 miles below Austin longer reaches and pools of sluggish current begin to 
appear, ending in either gravel bars or rock ledges and succeeded by stretches of swift 
shallow water over rock or gravel shoals. At intervals ledges of rock form natural dams 
across the stream from southwest to northeast. These are fault zones and occur at 
irregular intervals as far downstream as Garwood. The most prominent are at Miller 
Rapids about a mile west of Colorado Chapel in Bastrop County, and the falls just above 
Columbus in Colorado County. 

Between Austin and Lagrange as the height of banks decreases the width of channel 
increases, and the channel is in most places apparently of sufficient section to carry 
all but the largest floods. Where local overflows occur it is generally due to the 
condition of an abrupt bend with a comparatively narrow channel below, causing 
back water above. An instance of this kind was noted where drift is lodged in a tree 
top about 60 feet above low water. 

At Lagrange the first extensive flood damage becomes apparent . This town is built 
on high ground, about 40 to 50 feet above low water, but during the 1913 flood the 
greater part of the town was inundated to a depth of 3 to 4 feet. At Lagrange a wooden 
dam completely obstructs the channel at low stages, the reason for its existence could 
not be learned, but it is probably intended to create a constant head for pumping. 

Below Lagrange the river assumes a flatter gradient, banks become low r er and closer 
together, forming sections of lesser capacity than above Lagrange or below Columbus. 
Bottom lands are wide and all subject to inundation by ordinary floods. There are 
fewer impediments to navigation between Lagrange and Columbus than in any other 
part of the river excepting between Wharton and the “raft,” and this part of the 
stream could easily be made navigable. The only impediments are the sand bars 
formed at and extending about a mile below the entry of each tributary. 

A noticeable feature along the river between Austin and Columbus is the abundance 
and excellent quality for construction purposes of the sand and gravel deposits. These 
are being worked wherever transportation facilities are available, but the best of them 
are at present not developed on account of the distance from railway lines and freight 
to building centers. 

From Austin to the Travis County line the soil of the watershed is a heavy black 
gumbo, absorbing water readily when dry, less readily when wet, releasing stored 
water slowly, and less subject to erosion than the light sand soils of Bastrop County. 
This area is nearly all in cultivation. Below the Travis County line the soil changes 
to a light sandy loam underlain with clays, gravel, and shale. This soil absorbs a high 
percentage of the rainfall, and releases it as readily through numerous spring branches,, 
and erodes badly, especially where the common practice of drawing furrows up and 
down hill is adhered to. Many of the older fields are ruined by gullies. This light soil 
washing from the fields through the branches and creeks into the river has formed most 
of the sand bars in this section. The soil of the river valley adjacent to the river is a 
rich chocolate alluvium, somewhat coarse in the upper reaches, increasing in fineness 
and extent further downstream. 

The general stratigraphic dip is from west to east, and as there is little folding, the 
strata are superimposed almost horizontally. Fault zones are of frequent occurrence. 
Many flowing springs were noted, discharging from a mere trickle to as much as several 
cubic second-feet of water, even during the prevailing extended drouth. These springs 
are all on the right bank, and are found where the underground waters follow the 
impervious strata of clay and shale. As the dip is in many instances sufficient to put 
the same stratum on the opposite bank of the river under water surface, it is possible 
that a corresponding amount of water from the river finds its way out at such places 
to reappear elsewhere. There is also probably some loss of water through seams and 
fissures in the faulted zones crossing the river. 

Entering the flatter coastal, region at Columbus, the channel becomes more and 
more tortuous, the bridges on the north and east sides of Columbus are slightly over 
3,000 feet apart in a direct line, but the distance around the bend between them 
approximates 13 miles. River surface elevation at the lower bridge at Columbus is 
about 216 feet above sea level. A power project under consideration at this point 
can by a diversion across the neck of the big bend develop a head of 20 feet. No filing 
of this project was found among the Board of Water Engineers’ records. 

A gravel dredging and washing plant at Columbus has deposited large beds of sand 
in the channel below it. These probably wash out to some extent during floods. 

On the left bank, opposite Columbus, some levees have been built. These were 
partially destroyed by the 1913 flood, but have since been rebuilt. Just what stages 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 21 

they are designed to protect against could not be learned, but as they are at present 
not in very good condition, their value in case of a sudden flood is doubtful. 

Below Columbus much of the bottom land is in a wooded state, some original forest, 
and some second growth. Evidences of inundation by floods are abundant, and as the 
soil is of undoubted fertility it is apparent that it could all be utilized for agricultural 
purposes were protection from floods assured. At present the principal use made of 
these bottoms is for grazing. 

Between Columbus and Matagorda, irrigation for rice growing becomes a dominant 
factor and during the growing season, which is also the usual period of minimum dis¬ 
charge, requires a great deal of water. 

Between Columbus and Wharton impediments to navigation are numerous, con¬ 
sisting of frequent channel constructions, sand bars, and snag beds, the last named 
increasing in frequency until Wharton is reached, and jirobably present there but 
■concealed by the greater depth of backwater caused by the “raft.” 

From the head of the “raft” to the mouth pf the river all channels are choked with 
drift and the entire country extending even to adjoining watersheds is subject to 
inundation, much of it by stages of not more than 3 or 4 feet above normal. There 
is a protection levee at Bay City, but following the protracted drouth of the past two 
years, this has been neglected and has cracked and settled in many places to the 
extent that in the event of a flood breaches would be inevitable. Efforts are being 
made at this time to repair it. 

9. The “raft. ”—About the most prominent feature of the lower Colorado River, and 
certainly the one demanding most and immediate attention in any development 
scheme of the river, is the “raft.” This is a huge collection of drift, logs, trees, and 
all floating debris transported by a river. Its formation began at the mouth of the 
river about 1857, and upbuilding has continued steadily since then. Drift first became 
lodged in the channel, succeeding floods poured over the mass, depositing silt in 
which a tangle of willows, cottonwoods, and other quick growing vegetation sprang 
up. In some cases water continued to find its way through the “raft,” but usually the 
river took a new course around it, which would in turn be filled with drift. Once 
started, progress of the “raft” becomes automatic. The “raft” itself acts as a dam, 
raising the water level behind it, submerging part of the lowlands and deadening 
the hardwood timber in the submerged areas. These trees rot at the point of alternate 
wetting and drying, break off and are added to the “raft” at the first rise. The original 
forest is then replaced by a rank jungle of vines, weeds, and trees not so easily water 
killed. Along the entire stream wherever bank cutting is going on, whole trees fall 
into the water, many of these being floated by floods to temporary lodgement on bars, 
there seasoning and drying out, to be transported by later floods and finally becoming 
a part of the “raft.” liming the early years of settlement, when more land clearing 
was going on than at present, much deadened timber from clearings found its way to 
the “raft.” It would appear that with less land clearing going on, and the timber 
being now used commercially, that the amount of drift finding its way to the “raft” 
would be lessened, but the rate of travel upstream of the head of the “raft” does not 
seem to have diminished materially. 

A number of opinions are advanced to explain the beginning of the “raft.” The 
majority ascribe it to the chain or cable of an abandoned ferry stretched across the 
river first catching and holding the drift which later became firmly embedded in silt, 
and formed the nucleus. Others maintain that the beginning was due to unusual 
quantities of drift finding lodgement on mud shoals at the mouth of the river, obstruct¬ 
ing the channel enough to catch and hold other drift. Again others apparently as 
familiar with former conditions assert that booms had been stretched across the river 
to catch and hold driftwood to allow of culling out the mountain cedar for fence posts, 
and that these booms did their work only too well. It appears possible that the begin¬ 
ning of the “raft” may not be due so much to any one of these causes as to a combina¬ 
tion of them all. 

Progress up stream has continued at the rate of about 3,000 feet per annum. With 
time at the lower end of the “raft” those portions exposed to alternate wetting and 
drying rotted out and were washed away, but the portions under water or under a 
covering of silt remain, raising the bed of the river to almost the level of the former 
banks, which were once some 15 to 20 feet above the water, but have since been 
built up by silt deposits, until nothing resembling the former surface conditions 
pertains except in isolated instances. 

Wherever the river has cut new channels around the “raft” it has had to find its 
way back into the old obstructed channels below, with the result that when it reached 
the" obstructed part, deadwater or a greatly slackened current velocity and probably 
spreading of the water in a shallow sheet, would cause it to drop its load of silt and 
floating debris, and a new raft would build up from this point until the river would 


22 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


again seek a new outlet. The present head of the “raft” is about 38 miles above the 
mouth of the river, 12 miles above Bay City, and \ mile above the mouth of Blue 
Creek, backwater extending to about 25 miles above. 

At first the reservoir above the “raft ” was an advantage to the rice growers in that it 
served as a storage and decreased the lift at the pumping plants, but after frequent 
inundation of the pumping plants during flood years, the loss of some of them, and 
channel changes necessitating in some cases relocation of the entire systems, the pump¬ 
ing plant owners are now among the most eager for relief. 

At Wharton the head of Caney Creek is within one-fourth mile of the Colorado River, 
and it appears possible that Caney Creek was once a channel of the Colorado River. 
Left to itself the “raft” will probably continue to build up as far as Wharton, where 
the river would then cut its way through to Caney Creek, but destroying Wharton, 
other towns and settlements, and much valuable land before and during the process. 
It is also highly probable that after cutting through to Caney Creek, the narrow and 
already congested channel there would ‘soon become similarly choked and another 
“raft” started. 

Several attempts have been made by private parties, and the State of Texas, to cut 
new channels around the “raft”, but as these new channels all returned to the river 
in the more or less choked old channels below there, they quickly filled with drift 
and met the same end as the new channels cut by the river itself. 

10. Navigation .—It is a matter of record that the Colorado River between Austin 
and the mouth has been navigated by cargo-carrying boats. When the country was 
first settled, for lack of other means of transportation of heavy freight, the settlers 
naturally turned to the river for transportation of cotton and other bulky heavy freight. 
Between 1850 and 1860 steamboats made regular trips from Lagrange to Galveston and 
Indianola. This is said to have been not only at times of high water, but at normal 
stages. At least one of these boats was capable of carrying 500 bales of cotton at a 
trip. Two smaller boats plied above Lagrange, at favorable times making trips to 
Austin. Through the advent of the Civil War, stoppage of the mouth of the river by 
the “raft”, and extension of railway lines these boats were abandoned until today 
none but a few small launches and house-boats are to be found on the lower river, and 
only rowboats and canoes between Lagrange and Austin. There are of course no 
wharves or similar facilities of any kind except at Wharton, where a small landing 
for pleasure boats is maintained and the private landings of the Lane City Pumping 
Plant. 

For many years the chief purpose served by the river has been that of a sewer, and 
a neglected one at that. The channel has become clogged, and sand bars, the results 
of extensive erosion of cultivated lands in some parts of the stream have assumed 
proportions that effectually prevent navigation in its present condition. The “raft” 
completely blocks egress at the mouth. Snag beds are numerous, and the rock ledges 
are at low water impassable for any large boat. This reconnaissance was made at a 
river discharge of around 500 cubic feet per second; the boat used was a motor driven 
skiff drawing about 10 inches when loaded; considering the difficulties encountered 
in navigating this small boat, the stream in its present condition is certainly not 
navigable. 

It would not be advisable to indiscriminately remove the rock ledges that form 
some of the chief obstructions. This would interfere with the regimen of the 
stream, and would in all probability lead to the formation elsewhere of other obstruc¬ 
tions, and destroy the present deep stretches of water behind these ledges. The tem¬ 
porary removal of sand or gravel bars would be striking at the effects, and not reaching 
the cause. These bars would be renewed with each considerable change of stage. 
The same applies to snag beds. 

It is of course possible that by the construction of a lock and dam system, and cutting 
and maintaining a new channel around the “raft”, the river could be made navigable 
for cargo-carrying boats, but at a cost which even when combined with the distributed 
benefits of flood protection, power development, and irrigation, would be excessive 
and out of proportion to the benefits to be derived directly from use of the stream as 
a navigable waterway. An indirect benefit of lowered freight rates for rail transpor¬ 
tation would doubtless ensue with the result that shippers would avail themselves 
of the advantages of greater dispatch at a correspondingly low rate of rail transportation, 
and the river though made navigable would carry but a small fraction of the commerce 
of the contributory region. There may be a time when both rail and water transporta¬ 
tion facilities will become necessary, the water for local, and the rail for through freight, 
but that time is in the future although development of facilities for a local waterborne 
commerce may hasten it. There is also a certain class of freight that can not be carried 
to market profitably under present circumstances, but with water transportation 
would undoubtedly be developed. The timber industry, especially that of cedar 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


23 


posts, would enlarge, and large deposits of cement manufacturing and building 
materials could with the advantages of water transportation be developed far beyond 
their present state. 

A profile showing approximate distances and elevations along the Colorado River 
between Austin and the mouth is appended. With the limited information at hand 
it would be out of place to attempt an estimate of the extent or cost of improvement 
works necessary to make the Colorado River a navigable stream for cargo-carrying 
boats of any considerable size or capacity. 

Except a few near the lower end of the river, all bridges have ample clearance, and 
are all substantial structures of steel or concrete. Clearances of bridges between 
Matagorda and Austin are as follows (0 of distances is at the mouth of the stream): 

Feet. 


Mile 8 Watkins Ferry Highway Bridge. 20 

Mile 22.R St. L. B. & M. Railway Bridge. 20 

Mile 27, Bay City Highway Bridge, wood and steel.:. 18 

Mile 30, G. H. & S. A. Railway Bridge, steel.... 24 

Mile 61, Wharton Highway Bridge, steel... 40 

Mile 63 G. H. & S. A. Railway Bridge, steel..'. 40 

Mile 98, Garwood Highway Bridge steel... 40 

Mile 98, G. C. & S. F. Railway Bridge, steel. 40 

Mile 113, S. A. & A. P. Railway Bridge, steel. 36 

Mile 113,-— Highway Bridge, steel.. 36 

Mile 133, Columbus, Highway Bridge, steel. 50 

Mile 133, G. H. & S. A. Railway Bridge steel. 50 

Mile 143, Columbus Highway Bridge steel.. 48 

Mile 148 ; G. II. & S. A. Railway Bridge, steel. 48 

Mile 181 Lagrange Highway Bridge, steel and concrete. 50 

Mile 199, West Point, S. A. & A. P. Railway Bridge, steel... 50 

Mile 213 Smithville Highway Bridge, steei. 48 

Mile 232, M. K. & T. Railway Bridge, steel. 48 

Mile 243, Bastrop Highway Bridge, steel. 48 

Mile 246, Nash Ferry Highway Bridge, steel. 48 

Mile 287 Montopolis Highway Bridge, steel. . .. 48 

Mile 293, Austin Highway Viaduct concrete arch. 48 


Within the six river counties of Travis Bastrop, Fayette, Colorado, Wharton, and 
Matagorda there are approximately 670 miles of railway. During 1915, a typical year, 
inbound and outbound tonnage was handled as follows: Travis County 1,331,190 
tons; Bastrop County, 798 147 tons; Fayette County 515 830 tons; Colorado County, 
587,604 tons; Wharton County, 396,042 tons; Matagorda County 452,215 tons; of the 
total, 2,175 206 tons were outbound freight and consisted mainly of the agricultural 
products of the country. 

A strong local demand exists for improvement of the river. The Colorado River 
Improvement Association has a large membership in the six river counties below 
Austin, all of which counties, represented by their commissioners courts, have 
passed resolutions of cooperation, financial and otherwise, in the event that any 
improvement work on the Colorado River is carried out by the- Federal Government. 

11. Beneficial use of water .—Beneficial use of water from the Colorado River and its 
tributaries is made for the purposes of irrigation, power, municipal, and domestic 
uses. 

Irrigation is by far the greatest item, the principal irrigation projects being located 
on the Concho, Llano, and San Saba Rivers, Pecan Bayou, and on the Colorado River 
in Wharton and Matagorda Counties. At the headwaters general farming is practiced 
and in the coast country rice is the irrigated crop. 

Power plants are all above Austin, although there are excellent sites for develop¬ 
ment below there. 

Nearly all of the towns along the river derive their municipal water supply from the 
rrver. 

Sewage in an untreated state is discharged into the river, but sin c the passage of a 
State law to prevent stream pollution, the communities are constructing treating 
plants for municipal sewage. 

As an indication of the extent to which beneficial use is made of the waters of the 
Colorado River, the following tables are selected from the Second Report of the Board 
of Water Engineers for the State of Texas (1916). 

























24 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


Beneficial use of water on the Colorado River watershed. 

IRRIGATION ACREAGE BY STREAMS. 


[From Board of Water Engineers’ Report, Table 4, p. 47.] 


River. 

Total number 
of acres de¬ 
clared irrigable 
under existing 
systems. 

Total number 
of acres de¬ 
clared irrigated. 

Total number 
of acre-feet 
of water ap¬ 
propriated to 
beneficial use. 

Colorado (including Pecan Bayou and Pedernales River) 
Concho... 

536,028. 20 
13,509.65 
13,631.96 
20, 969.00 

145,769.70 
11,655.65 
11,005.86 
4, 741.00 

291, 540 
23,312 
22,012 
9,482 

San Saba.■. 

Llano... 

Total. 

584,138.81 

173,172.21 

346,346 



Of the above tabulated acreage.there is situated below Austin, and directly affected 
by any river development, the following: 


IRRIGATION ACREAGE BY COUNTIES. 


| From Board of Water Engineers’ Report, Table 5, p. 48.] 


County. 

Total number 
of acres de¬ 
clared irrigable 
under existing 
systems. 

Total number 
of acres de¬ 
clared irrigated. 

Total number 
of acre-feet 
of water ap¬ 
propriated to 
beneficial use. 

Travis. 

2,453 

1,159 

2,318 

Bastrop .. .. . . 

Payette . . 




Colorado. 

59,000 
109,150 
377,950 

10,500 
40, 625 
84,850 

21,000 
81, 252 
169,700 

Wharton. 

Matagorda. 

Total. 

539, 553 

137,135 

274,270 



Lands irrigated from the Colorado River or its tributaries situated above Austin 
are found by the difference of the two preceding tables, as follows: 


Total number of af res de< lared irrigable under existing systems. 44, 585. 81 

Total number of acres declared irrigated. 36, 037. 21 

Total number of acre-feet of water appropriated to beneficial use. 72, 076. 00 


Appropriations of water from the Colorado River and its tributaries for beneficial uses 
other than irrigation—Certified filings for storage and miscellaneous uses. 

[From the State Board of Water Engineers’ Report, Table 2, pp. 43 and 44.] 


Name of appropriator and 
stream. 

C ount.y. 

Declared 
rate of con¬ 
tinued use, 
cubic second- 
feet. 

Declared 
consumption 
in acre-feet 
per annum. 

Declared 
storage in 
acre-feet per 
annum. 

Remarks. 

Colorado River: 

Morrow, .1. .7. 

Coke. 


42 


Waterworks. 

Do. 

Bomar, D. T. 

Tavlor. 

0.16 

20 


Benson, M. H. 

Brown. 

.22 

160 


Do. 

Brownwood. 

.do. 

2,000 

Do. 

B illinger. 

Runnels. 

1.00 


Do. 

Winters. 

.do. 

4.00 



Do. 

Alexander, E. C. 

San Saba.... 


56,400 

Not built. 

Hays, Amos. 


.75 


Manufacturing. 

Power. 

Simpson, J. N. 

Burnet. 

(iO, 000 


Do. 

.do. 


8,400 
459,000 

58,850 

Not built. 

Do. 

Burnet, San 



Do. 

Do. 

Saba! 

.do. 



Do. 

Reed, M. II. 

Burnet. 



Waterworks. 
Not built. 
Municipal. 
Waterworks. 
Do. 

Alexander, E. C. 

Travis. 



430,000 
80,000 

Austin...!. 

.do. 


4,000 

Bastrop Water & Light Co. 
Buescher, E. 

Bastrop. 


1,095 

.do!. 

1.11 

'405 


Lagrange. 

Fayette. 


Do. 

Concho River: 

San Angelo Light & Power 
Co. 

Cofich o, W. W. 

Tom Green.. 


2, 500 

1G 

30G 

Do. 

Concho. 

.22 

Do. 





































































































25 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


Appropriations of water from the Colorado River and its tributaries jor beneficial uses 
other than irrigation—Certified filings for storage and miscellaneous uses —Contd. 


Name of appropriator and 
stream. 

County. 

Declared 
rate of con¬ 
tinued use, 
cubic sccond- 
feet. 

Declared 
consumption 
in acre-feet 
per annum. 

Declared 
storage in 
acre-feet per 
annum. 

Remarks. 

San Saba Ri er: 

Bevans, W. P. 

Menard. 




Waterworks. 

Laundry. 

Stock. 

Waterworks. 

Manufacturing. 

Not built. 

Power. 

Do. 

Gose, T. A. 

San Saba.... 


30 

17 

5,854 


Doran, H. H. 

.do. 



San Saba Water Co. 

.do. 

3.00 

1.00 


San Saha Light & Irrigation 
Co. 

Simpson, J. N. 

.do. 




21,000 

Llano River: 

Junction G. & W. Co. 

Kimble. 

500. 00 
833.00 


Llano M. & M. Co. 

Llano. 



Total.... 





1,349.46 

74,139 ' 1,115,956 




There are in addition to the above some small water rights held by railways for engine 
water; these do not im hide any storage. 

It. appears from the foregoing tables that, the use of water from the river, while large in 
the upper region of the stream, is greatest in the rice growing section near the mouth. 
Use on the upper watershed extent's over a longer season than in the rice fields. 

Referring to the rice irrigation situation on the lower Colorado River, the Board of 
Water Engineers Report states: “The aggregate pumping capacity of all these plants 
exceeds the low water flow in the river during dry seasons, with the result, that the short¬ 
age of water is felt most by those plants lot ated in Matagorda County. ” 

During the current year about 50,000 acres were planted to rice and irrigated from 
the Colorado River. The decreased acreage being due to a shortage of water. Includ¬ 
ing the stored water pur. based by the rice growers and released when needed from the 
reservoir at Austin, there was available a discharge of not over 150 cubic second-feet at 
the Lakeside plant in Colorado County, and not over 25 cubic second-feet for the 
Matagorda County plants. 

It is apparent from all sources that the ric e growing industry is greatly retarded by 
the lack of water during the growing season, and the pumping plants subject to flood 
damage during floods. In taking up a study of storage reservoirs for flood protection, at¬ 
tention should be given to the possibilities of storage to be retained for benefit ial use, as 
it is certain that, cooperation toward this end c ould be obtained amone the rice growers. 

12. Discharges and g ige heights, flood and normal. —Prior to 1900 the United States 
Geological Survey records of Colorado River discharges are fragmentary. A gaging 
station was in operation at Austin, but as this was at the dam there is no measured 
record of the great flood of 1900 that destroyed the dam at that place. From 1901 to 
1910, in( lusive, records at Austin are available. From 1911 to 1914, inclusive, there is 
a gap in the United States Geological Survey records. During 1915 the station at 
Austin was reestablished, and records to the present time are available. The following 
tables of annual discharges are taken from the published records of the Geological 
Survey. 

Annual discharges Colorado River at Austin, Tex. 


Year. 


1901 

1902. 

1903 

1904 

1905 

1906 

1907 

1908. 

1909. 

1910. 

1915. 

1916. 

1917. 


Period 


Maximum, Minimum, 
cubic cubic 

second-feet, second-feet. 

Average, 

cubic 

second-feet. 

Total, 

acre-feet. 

40,912 

175 

1 

994 

1,350,577 

31,2.50 

180 

2 

224 

1,619,108 

33,070 

320 

2 

157 

1,550,434 

46,140 

200 

1, 

595 

1,154,000 

51,190 I 

175 

1 

918 

1,396,000 

70,300 

175 

3, 

060 

2,230,000 

28,100 

50 

1, 

740 

1,260,000 

72, 600 

183 

2 

710 

1,960,000 

29,700 

123 

1, 

690 

1,0.50,000 

27,400 

40 


865 

626,000 

84,000 

2 

3, 

010 

2,180,000 

28,000 

80 

1, 

200 

874,000 

9,750 

52 


590 

427,000 

84,000 

1 

2 

b 

828 

i 1,375,163 


1 Average. 



































































26 


COLORADO RIVER; TEX. 

Annual discharges Colorado River at Columbus, Tex. 


Year. 

Maximum, 

cubic 

second-feet. 

Minimum, 

cubic 

second-feet. 

Average, 

cubic 

second-feet. 

Total, 

acre-feet. 

1904. 

28,900 

390 

2,225 

1,517,000 


37,900 

680 

3,358 

2,444,000 

1905. 

38,600 

880 

2,730 

1,980,000 

1907. 

41,500 

305 

3,090 

2,230,000 

190S. 

43.100 

600 

3,400 

2,460,000 

1909. 

15,300 

450 

1,690 

1,220,000 

1910. 

15,300 

10 

1,200 

872,000 

1911. 

17,400 

70 

2,210 

1,600,000 

1917... 

4,060 

104 

655 

474,000 

Period. 

43,100 

10 

1 2,284 

1 1,644,111 


i Average. 


From the preceding tables the average discharge of the Colorado Rive r at Austin 
over an interrupted 13-vear period is 1,828 cubic feet per second and for the river at 
Columbus over a 9-year interrupted period is 2,284 cubic feet per second. This repre¬ 
sents an average of the daily discha v ges taken for each month, an average of monthly 
averages for the year, and an average of the annual averages for the period, lliese 
averages represent the theoretical average, if discharge were perfectly equalized, but 
for the consideration of an average discharge for navigation purposes are misleading. 

The following tables of duration of discharge or days of deficient discharge, taken 
from the United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper No. 438. gives a mere 
comprehensive idea of the condition of the stream over a term of years. 


Days of deficient discharge. 


charge. 

1901-2 

1902-3 

1903-4 

1904-5 

1905-6 

1906-7 

1907-8 

1908-9 

1909-10 

1914-15 

1915-16 

100 




45 



36 

26 

3 

200 

1 


3 

20 

45 

103 

1 

34 

55 

44 

29 

300 

20 

10 

22 

75 

135 

204 

11 I 

94 

102 

68 

52 

400 

68 

30 

130 

150 

185 

228 

41 

156 

165 

72 

97 

500 

167 

59 

189 

177 

198 

253 

78 1 

195 

228 

83 

145 

600 

216 

77 

223 

196 

207 

261 

92 

203 

241 

95 

177 

700 

236 

90 

243 

218 

221 

292 

142 

226 

266 

112 

222 

800 

251 

108 

259 

234 

224 

300 

166 

234 

279 

120 

239 

900 

263 

122 

266 

242 

231 

305 

179 

244 

281 

135 

257 

1,000 

271 

148 

273 

247 

234 

310 

190 

250 

294 

142 

272 

1,200 

284 

197 

• 286 

263 

241 

315 

225 

273 

307 

205 

289 

1,400 

292 

218 

292 

273 

247 

323 

256 

293 

319 

240 

300 

1,600 

301 

232 

300 

282 

255 

327 

261 

299 

321 

255 

310 

1,800 

313 

247 

305 

291 

263 

331 

271 

310 

321 

262 

315 

2,000 

317 

260 

309 

296 

267 

334 

276 

317 

322 

262 

318 

3,000 

330 

307 

322 

315 

291 

342 

299 

332 

335 

289 

338 

4,000 

338 

321 

332 

327 

301 

345 

317 

342 

338 

307 

346 

5,000 

341 

331 

337 

334 

314 

347 

322 

347 

341 

314 

353 

6,000 

343 

340 

342 

339 

320 

348 

329 

349 

343 

324 

355 

7,000 

344 

344 

346 

342 

323 

348 

331 

352 

345 

338 

358 

8,000 

347 

346 

348 

345 

325 

348 

336 

354 

350 

347 

359 

9,000 

349 

350 

350 

347 

330 

348 

340 

355 

352 

348 

360 

10,000 

353 

351 

352 

348 

335 

352 

344 

356 

344 

349 

362 

20,000 

356 

360 

359 

359 

350 

363 

351 

362 

364 

355 

365 

30,000 

361 

362 

364 

363 

359 

365 

357 

365 

365 

357 

366 

40,000 

365 

365 

365 

364 

362 


361 



362 


50,000 



366 

364 

362 


362 



362 


60,000 




365 

364 


364 



363 


75,000 




365 


366 



364 


100,000 









365 



1 






1 




From the above table, assuming a discharge of between 20,000 and 30,000 cubic 
second-feet at Austin to be approaching the danger point, there have been in the 
11-year interrupted period covered by the table 35 days of dangerous floods. This 
does not include the years of 1911 to 1913, inclusive, during which the greatest floods 
of record occurred. 

All discharges at Austin since the reconstruction of the dam there during 1914 and 
1915 are affected by the dam. Floods are to some extent retarded upon entering the 
reservoir, and low-water discharges are entirely controlled by gate regulation. 

A mass curve of Colorado River discharges at Austin, constructed in this office by 
Mr. J. W. Henderson, assistant engineer, gives an average discharge of 1,250 cubic feet 




































































COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


27 


per second, covering the period from 1896 to 1910, inclusive. This is believed to be a 
closer approximation to the average than the United States Geological Survey’s com¬ 
puted averages, but is subject to error in the application of published rating ta 1 les to 
published gage heights to secure discharge quantities. To fill in the vacancies of the 
Geological Survey records at this station, the published gage heights of the United 
States Weather Bureau were used. The older rating tables were constructed from 
insufficient measurements, and as it is now known that the relation of stage to discharge 
at this station is variable it is prol able that in applying rating tables not adjusted to 
these changes a percentage of error is liable. The published records of the Geological 
Survey since 1915 take this factor into consideration and the results are corrected 
accordingly. These later records do not extend over a sufficient period of time nor 
range of stages to base an average upon them alone. 

The relative value of flood discharges obtained by the extension of a rating curve, 
and those obtained by actual measurement of the floods, is also open to discussion. So 
far as is known, there are no direct measurements of the highest stages of the C olorado 
River during floods in existence. 

It is unfortunate that gaps in the United States Geological Survey records occur 
during the vears from 1912 to 1913, as the greatest flood of record occurred during this 
period. The only records of this available are the United States Weather Bureau 
Gage Heights and some local olnervations. 

For a study of origin, height, duration, and general behavior of both ma ; or and minor 
floods, a series of hydrographs of typical floods was platted for the stations at Austin 
and Columbus, the location, intensity, and time of precipitation causing these floods 
being obtained from the records of the United States Weather Bureau. These 
hydrographs are appended to this report. 

Referring to the map of the watershed, it will be seen that between Austin and 
Columbus this is narrow, with few tri 1 utaries of length or importance, the principal 
tributaries being included within the mountain area between Austin and Ballinger. 
The drainage area above Ballinger, while large, contains few important tributaries. 

Precipitation rec >rds show that the stream passes through the entire range from the 
semiarid regions of the plains country at the head, with an annual precipitation of 10 
inches, to the humid region of the coast with an annual average of 55 inches. 

It appears from a study of discharges in conjunction with precipitation, that the 
principal origin of Colorado River floods is traceable to that part of the watershed 
between Austin and Ballinger, including the catchment basins of the Pedernales, 
Llano, San Saba, and Concho Rivers, and Pecan Bavou. While this part of the basin 
of the Colorado River is in a region of lesser rainfall than the parts nearer the coast, 
rains are as a rule torrential, the watershed is mountainous, soil thin, and all conditions 
tending toward a rapid and high run-off. That part of the watershed between Austin 
and the mouth, while subject to a greater and more frequent rainfall, contributes less 
to normal and apparently less to flood discharge of the river than the area between 
Austin and Ballinger. 

Much of the contributory area below Austin is a porous, sandy soil, absorbing water 
readily and to some extent even after long continued rains. The black land prairie 
contiguous to Austin is all in a high state of cultivation and will catch and retain a high 
proportion of rain. The pasture and timber lands of the lower Colorado, all more or 
less flat, also retain high proportions of moisture and tend toward a slow escape of 
excess storm water to the river. 

The region above Ballinger may be considered negligible, for so far as known, no 
considerable contribution to either normal or flood discharge originates there. It is 
of record that high stages have occurred at Ballinger, but these were of short duration 
and originated only a short distance above there. 

Local records of the occurrence and approximate stages of historic floods in the Colo¬ 
rado River at Austin, taken from the Water Supply Papers of the United States Geo¬ 
logical Survey, are; February, 1843, height, 36 feet; March, 1852, height, 36 feet; 
July, 1869, height, 43 feet; October, 1870, height, 36 feet; June, 1899, height, 23 feet; 
April, 1900, height 33 feet. The flood of 1869 submerged the lower parts of Austin 
and Webberville, both high above low water. During the 1900 flood the dam at 
Austin failed at an estimated discharge of 133,000 cubic feet per second with a height 
of 11 feet passing over a crest 1,200 feet long. The large loss of life and property 
during this flood was due to the excessive and sudden flood wave released by the 
breaking of the dam. 

The greatest flood of which an accurate history is available is that of December, 1913. 
The appended hydrographs of this flood are platted to gage heights only, as anything 
but an approximation of these high discharges is guesswork. From a study of the 
hydrographs and precipitation records for the period, the general conditions may be 
deduced. The month of October had been a period of general rains throughout the 
watershed, especially in that part between Austin and the coast. As these were slow 
rains, most of the moisture had gone into the ground. River stages had returned to 


28 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


nearly normal when during the first week of November general rains began on the 
lower watershed, soaking the ground still further and causing some floods at and below 
Columbus. On November 22, the stage at Columbus had subsided to 8.2 feet or nearly 
normal. Heavy rains on the upper watershed began about November 22, and a little 
later, lighter rains increasing in amount, began below Austin, continuing until Decem¬ 
ber 26. These rains on the lower watershed were in themselves normally insufficient 
to cause a flood, but falling on ground already thoroughly soaked, run-off was higher 
in proportion than usual. With the condition of the river at, or nearly at bankful 1 
stages from local rains, and some accretions from above Austin, the synchronous arrival 
of a second flood wave from the headwaters caused the most extensive, longest contin¬ 
ued, and generally damaging flood of record. It is difficult to say where damage 
was greatest. A large part of the crops were lost and parts of all towns along the river 
submerged. The peak stage of 27 feet was reached at Austin on December 4 and a 
stage of 49 feet at Columbus on December 6. A subsiding stage of 5 feet was reached 
at Austin on December 12, and of 15 feet at Columbus on December 24. Stages at 
Austin were not so high as at other times, for in this instance flood peaks from the 
various tributaries above there did not arrive at the same time. Below Austin, prob¬ 
ably just above Lagrange, there was a consolidation of these peaks from the headwaters. 
This combination of circumstances is rare, and with the limited data at hand it is 
impossible to state the arrival of which particular flood wave raised the stage to the 
point of disaster. But it is safe to say that the sudden accretion of flood waves from 
the headwaters to the already congested channel below Austin, in some cases nearly 
out of banks from local rains, brought on the flood. Had there been restraint of 
these flood waves from the headwaters, the channel below might have had time to 
clear itself, perhaps sufficiently to accommodate the reduced discharges and surely to 
the point of lessening the disaster. A levee system alone would have been useless. 
At the time of this flood in the Colorado River, similar floods occurred in adjoining 
watersheds, and for a distance of about 40 miles above their mouths, the Colorado and 
Brazos Rivers united. 

Unless written records are compiled as soon as possible after a damaging flood, 
memory is too liable to be treacherous, and the tendency to exaggerate or minimize 
damages leads to misinformation. The only records available are some county records 
which have been gathered and incorporated in a report bv Mr. A. A. Stiles, State 
reclamation engineer, and Mr. W. E. Long, of the Colorado River Improvement Asso¬ 
ciation. This information is contained in the following table of occurrence, approx¬ 
imate gage heights, loss in lives, loss in property, and approximate direct and in¬ 
direct damages. 


Date. 

Stage. 

Lives 

lost. 

Property 

loss. 

Damage 

direct. 

Damage 

indirect. 

Austin, Apr. 7, 1900. 

44.0 

} 47 

$4,750,600 

$4,300,000 

$5,000,000 

Columbus, Apr. 9,1900.. 

64.0 

Austin, July 10, 1901. 

20.0 

} i 

700,000 

1,100,000 

1,340,000 

Columbus, July 12, 1901. 

33,0 

Austin, July 20, 1902... 

36.0 

43.0 


920,000 

2,900,000 

1,300,000 

Columbus, July 23, 1902. 

>. 

/ 

Austin, Feb. 20, 1903 

30.0 

41.0 

} 2 

295,000 

740,000 

210,000 

Columbus, Feb. 23, 1903... 

Austin, Oct. 10, 1903. 

20.0 

} * 

420,000 

1,340,000 

855,000 

Columbus, Oct. 13, 1903. 

36.0 

Austin, June 8, 1904. 

10.3 

25.5 

i 

125,500 

1,730,000 

2,340,000 

Columbus, June 11, 1904. 

>. 

/ 

Austin, Apr. 39, 19)5.. 

Columbus, May 2, 1905. 

15.0 

26.3 

} * 

560,000 

1,675,000 

1,500,000 

Austin, May 9,' 1905. 

10.5 
20.1 


485,000 

1,346,000 

1,330,000 

Columbus, May 11, 1905 

f. 

Austin, June 8, 1906. 

8^0 

16.5 

) 

110,000 

160,000 

195,000 

Columbus, June 11, 1906. 

>. 

/ 

Austin, Aug. 12, 1906. 

19.5 


978,000 

1,020,100 

1,230,009 

Columbus, Aug 14 1908 

27.0 

10.2 

\ . 

Austin, May 29, 1907. 

2 

650,000 

1,340,000 

1,100,000 

Columbus, June 1, 1907. 

35.0 

Austin, Apr. 23, 1908. 

21.6 j 

3 

1,320,000 

980,000 

1, 320,000 

Austin, May 25, 1908. 

17.0 

Columbus, May 30, 1908 

33.8 
10.6 

20.9 

f 1 

450,000 

870,000 

1,500,000 

Austin, June A, 1909. 

J 

\ 

330,000 

655,000 

870,00) 

Columbus, June 5, 1909 

y. 

Austin, July 24’, 1909. 

10! 3 
16.9 

) 

\ 

73,000 

56,000 

37,000 

Columbus, July 26, 1909. 

i. 

/ 

Austin, Sept. 9, 1910. 

10.0 
18.2 

\ 

.36,000 

23,000 

10,009 

Columbus, Sept 11 1910 

y. 

Austin, Dec. 6, 1913. 


\ Q 

1,980,000 

3,430,000 

3,350,000 

Columbus, Dec. —, 1913. 

44.0 

/ 3 






Total. 


61 

14,320,100 

22,765,100 

23,388,500 



























































COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


29 


The tax assessors’ records of thjs six river counties list the following acreage as “ over¬ 
flow” land: Travis County, 11,750 acres; Bastrop County, 19,840 acres; Fayette 
County. 43,487 acres; Colorado County, 29,467 acres; Wharton County, 39,4 r 0 acres; 
Matagorda County. 91,500 acres. These lands are describ ed in the assessors’ lists as 
‘‘overflow lands,’’ but it is a fact that much other overflow land used for grazing only 
is listed as grazing land. No accurate figures are available, but a rough estimate in 
the field leads to the belief that the total of 235.494 acres listed as overflow land, should 
be classed as overflow land cultivated, susceptible of cultivation, or in cultivation at 
some prior time. Counting in the land in timber or abandoned for agricultural pur¬ 
poses and used for grazing only, an approximate estimate of lands subject to overflow 
in the six counties named would be about 270.000 acres. This land has at present a 
value of about $25 per acre, but if protection against floods were assured would 1 e 
worth at least $100 per acre. 

The problem of flood protection thus resolves itself into a consideration of: Lands 
benefited, nearly all situated between Austin and the Gulf: and. origin of the floods, 
chiefly between Austin and Ballinger, with in some cases damaging accretions from 
the lower watershed. 

13. Levees .—A system of earthen embankments or levees designed to contain the 
cross section of even the largest floods could be built. Such a system should begin 
at about Lagrange and extend from there to the mouth of the river. There are of 
course included in this stretch of the river high bluff banks that need no protective 
works whatever, but the greater area from Lagrange down to the mouth of the river 
is in need of protection. Bay City and the entire country in the vicinity of the “raft” 
is in urgent need of protection to not only property, but human life in time of flood. 
Levees are apparently the only practical "form of protective works to meet conditions 
there. 

A discussion of the comparative merits and demerits of levee systems compared to 
storage and detention systems will not be entered into here. The endeavor is made 
to present the value of each where best suited to meet local conditions. Any levee 
system carried to construction, should be only after careful consideration of future 
works of the same kind, the effects at other points along the stream, and upon other 
development projects, and should be a part of a carefully designed system. The 
Texas State Reclamation Department has charge of the regulation of such works in 
the State, but at present has no adequate surveys to base any plans upon. 

In conjunction with levees some slight channel changes in addition to that at the 
“raft” might be necessary; the clearing of snag beds and removal of overhanging 
trees would also contribute to more even flow in time of flood. 

14. Storage and detention reservoirs .—From a study of all related conditions it 
appears that the opportunity is highly favorable for flood regulations by a system of 
reservoirs in the mountain region above Austin. Such a system in conjunction with 
a modified levee systefn could be built at a cost not in excess of an all levee system. 

The fact is established that floods in the Colorado River b elow Austin result from 
the combined accretions of flood waves originating in the tributary headwaters in the 
mountain area above Austin, which may or may not be combined with accretions 
from excessive rainfall on the lower watershed. 

As the channel below Austin appears, with some exceptions, ample to carry flood 
discharges derived from between Austin and the mouth of the river, there remains 
the solution of the problem of disposing of the flood waves coming from above Austin. 
This can manifestly be best accomplished by storage and detention of these flood 
waters near their sources, and their gradual release as the stream bed below clears 
itself of local flood water. 

Recognizing that the creation of large reservoirs for the purpose of flood protection 
alone is ordinarily not sufficient justification for the expense, and that the interests of 
storage for the purpose of flood protection, and for the purposes of irrigation, power 
and navigation are fundamentally antagonistic, it is nevertheless believed that in the 
present instance a combination can be reached that is not only possible but entirely 
fusible. Furthermore, such a system of river development would be complete and 
comprehensive, and would meet the requirements of not only flood protection, but to 
some extent of navigation, and certainly of irrigation and power development. Filling 
the requirements of the different local interests affected by any development of the 
river, storage regulation combined with levee protection in a modified form, would 
mean that the entire cost would be distrib uted over a greater field, and the final unit 
cost to each interest lowered in proportion. 

At the locations selected for reservoir sites all conditions are favorable to cheap con¬ 
struction and maximum efficiency of dams designed for both flood control and storage. 

Rainfall is torrential, and periods of long continued rain are rare. Storms producing 
disastrous floods in the lower river have been known to follow one another closely, as 
during the 1913 flood, but this condition is very rare, and the bulk of the annual pre¬ 
cipitation occurs during the spring and fall months. 


30 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


Excellent reservoir sites with the best of dam foundations and abundant local con¬ 
struction materials are found in the Colorado River stbove Austin, and in the principal 
tributaries. The lands to be submerged being of little value for agricultural pur¬ 
poses, the creation of these flood protection reservoirs would not materially inter¬ 
fere with local projects for power and irrigation alone, and in at least one instance, on 
the San Saba, would afford flood protection and added beneficial use of water to an 
extensive cultivated and irrigated valley adjacent to San Saba, at present subject to 
flood damage, and hitherto not considered in this report, but which should be included 
in any general development. 

A type of dam designed to meet the requirements of both flood protection and stor¬ 
age for either beneficial uses or equalization of discharge, would involve the division 
and regulation of reservoir space behind it according to use. The storage space should 
be proportionately divided into flood storage, to act as a retention for flood water to 
be released as quickly as possible following each flood in order to provide space for a 
succeeding flood: and, equalization storage or such storage as mav be retained and 
released when needed to increase low water discharges or for beneficial uses—in this 
case rice irrigation. A third storage space can be developed by a properly designed 
spillway. The function of a spillway is usually defined as that of a safety device, to 
provide an additional outlet when inflow into the reservoir exceeds the discharging 
capacity of the gates, to prevent the rise of water behind the dam to the point where 
it would pour over the top and endanger the safety of the structure. After the water 
in the reservoir reaches spillway elevation it begins to discharge over the crest in 
amounts increasing in proportion to the length and depth over crest. Assuming a 
condition of inflow greatly in excess of outflow, which would be the condition in a 
flood protection reservoir at time of flood, and that the reservoir is full to spillway 
crest elevation. There would result a temporary detention of a large amount of water 
in the reservoir above this elevation, with a consequent reduction and prolongation of 
discharge, limited by the capacity of gates and spillway and governed by the extent 
of the superstorage. This superstorage or temporary detention storage above spillway 
crest, will be of considerable magnitude, as the capacity of the top part of a reservoir is 
always the greatest, and will amount to practically the same as the temporary storage 
behind a purely detention works. This condition occurs in nature at the outlets of 
lakes, and wherever a channel constriction is found, and can be artificially produced 
in the same way. It is believed that a dam and spillway designed to meet these re¬ 
quirements will greatly increase the flood protective value of the structure, and should 
be considered in planning such construction as a part of a Colorado River protective 
•ystem. 

Gates should be of adequate capacity and placed at original river bed elevation to 
permit silt sluicing in time of flood. 

Experience with silt deposits in the reservoir at Austin proves that silt is a serious 
factor in any Colorado River development. The old Austin. Reservoir was rapidly 
and greatly reduced in capacity, and would in time have been completely filled, as 
there were no adequate provisions for sluicing off the deposits. The Colorado River 
at normal stages is clear, and beyond the constant movement of silt along the bottom 
as is the case in all streams, does not at the lower stages transport large quantities of 
silt. At times of flood the stream transports a very great amount of silt, as evidenced 
by the renewal with each flood of gravel, deposits, and the silting of the old and pre -ent 
reservoirs at Austin. The writer while in the employ of the United States Reclama¬ 
tion Service made a study of silt deposits in reservoirs, and the conclusions drawn 
from those investigations, lead to the belief that the capacity of a reservoir will be 
permanently reduced to a certain point by silt deposits, but beyond that point, with 
adequate facilities for sluicing off silt, the life of a reservoir may be prolonged indefi¬ 
nitely. 

An able exposition of the possibilities of a combination of flood protection and storage 
for beneficial uses, is found in a paper on “Detention reservoirs with spillway outlets 
as an agency in flood control” by H. M. Chittenden M. Am. Soc. C. E., in the Sep¬ 
tember, 1917, number of the Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers. 

As evidence of successful control of floods by reservoirs serving other purposes as 
well, may be cited the Keechelus, and Kachess Reservoirs at the head of the Yakima 
River in Washington, and the Elephant Butte Reservoir on the Rio Grande in New 
Mexico. These were constructed primarily for the storage of water for irrigation, 
but serve as a complete flood control as well. 

The Texas State Board of Water Engineers in their second report (1914-1916) refer¬ 
ring to the development of the rivers of Texas, state: 

“The great bulk of storm water which should be used in irrigation, power develop¬ 
ment, and many other ways, now passes unused to the Gulf. This water should be 
stored so as to be available for power development, irrigation, water supplies for 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


31 


towns and cities, and to regulate high water discharge and help to minimize the 
damage due to overflows.” 

Assuming therefore that while the creation of reservoirs on the headwaters of the 
Colorado River would for flood protection alone be of questionable justification; 
for the combined purposes of flood protection and beneficial use of stored water, they 
would be entirely justifiable and would offer, by restraint of accruing flood discharges 
from tributaries, protection against disastrous floods to the territory below; by the 
release of stored water creating a regular, dependable discharge to the benefit of 
navigation, power development, and irrigation, the last named item alone of sufficient 
importance to justify their creation. 

15. Darns and reservoirs in the Colorado River above Austin .—The present dam at 
Austin creates a reservoir space about 28 miles long at an elevation of about 490 feet 
above sea level. Backwater extends to 2\ miles below Marshall Ford. Storage 
capacity is about 75,000 acre-feet. 

The next governing point for other projected storage above the Austin Reservoir 
is the town of Marble Falls. This town, built close to the water’s edge, the adjacent 
power sites, and the power site at Smithwick a short distance below there, should not 
be submerged by other reservoirs. 

Above Marble IAills no other important developments have been made or projected 
until a dam site at the corner of Burnet and San Saba Counties is reached. This 
location, one of the best in the river has been appropriated by private parties for irri¬ 
gation and power storage, on which no construction has been done. The filing is for 
459,000 acre-feet. 

A reservoir for the purposes embodied in this report should be below the entry of-as 
many tributaries as possible. The most favorable location in the Colorado River 
within the limits specified would be found between contours 500 and 700 feet above 
sea level, which cross the stream between Austin and Marble Falls. The River in 
this region flows through a narrow rocky gorge carved through the limestone hills. 
The banks are usually about 1,200 feet apart and about 40 to 60 feet high to the tops 
of the first bluffs. Throughout here wherever there are bluffs on both sides and the 
distance between somewhat narrowed, this combination makes for good dam sites, 
but the same conditions make storage space more difficult to find. 

It is true that one or two large reservoirs located in the Colorado River would possess 
undoubted advantages over a system of smaller reservoirs in each of the tributary 
streams. It is questionable, or at any rate open to discussion, whether the increased 
size, greater costs and difficulties of construction, together with the greater tendency 
toward silting of reservoirs in the main stream, would outweigh the advantages of 
even complete control of floods at one or two points. 

Within the limits named for the location of reservoirs in the main stream, founda¬ 
tions are uniformly good, construction materials abundant, and land to be submerged 
of low value for other purposes. Railway and highway facilities to the sites are not 
of the best. Three sites are discussed here, all more or less alike in regard to construc¬ 
tion feasibility, and differing only in storage capacity, and dimensions of dams. 

16. Lower Marshall Ford dam site .—This site is available for filing; is situated on 
the Colorado River, in Travis County, about 13 miles northwest of Austin, at the 
lower end of the “ox-bow” bend, about miles below Marshall Ford. The river 
bed elevation is about 500, and a dam with spillway elevation of 625, and crest length 
of 2,000 feet, would create a reservoir 35 miles long with an average depth of 62 feet, 
width of 1,500 feet, and storage capacity to spillway crest of 634,000 acre-feet. 

17. Upper Marshall Ford dam site .—Situated about 6 miles above the lower Marshall 
Ford site on the Colorado Riber, this site is an alternative. The river bed elevation 
is about 510; a dam built to spillway elevation of 625, with a crest length of 2,000 feet, 
would create a reservoir about 29 miles long, with an average width of 1,800 feet and 
storage capacity to spillway crest of 256,000 acre-feet. 

18. Stewart Ford dam site .—On the Colorado River, in Travis County, about 16 
miles northwest of Austin, at the Stewart Ford. River bed elevation is about 530, 
a dam to spillway elevation of 675 would create a reservoir 30 miles long, of an average 
depth of 72 feet, and storage capacity to spillway crest of 420,000 acre-feet. 

19. Tributary streams considered with regard to flood protective works .—With few 
exceptions these are all above Austin. • The only noteworthy exceptions are, Onion 
Creek which enters about 14 miles below Austin, and Barton Creek at Austin. There 
are several other minor tributary creeks below Austin, but their discharge is not 
believed to be great enough to cause disaster. 

No accurate data is available of Onion Creek discharges although it is known that 
the stream at times of flood is subject to rises of 20 to 25 feet, causing, when combined 
with backwater from the Colorado River, some damage near its mouth. 


32 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


Barton Creek enters the Colorado River at Austin, and derives its normal discharge 
from artesian springs about three-fourths of a mile above its mouth. These springs 
have a normal discharge of about 20 cubic second-feet, and are being developed as a 
water supply for the city of Austin. The watershed of Barton Creek extends about 38 
miles above its mouth, and 30-''oot floods of short duration have b een known. A gaug¬ 
ing station has been established near the springs 1 ut has not been in operation long 
enough to obtain anv flood records. It is believed that Barton Creek floods, while high, 
do not add materially to a Colorado River flood. 

A locally disastrous flood with much loss of property, and some lives, was occasioned 
during 1915 in Waller Creek at Austin. This is a small creek, rising within and flow¬ 
ing through the citv of Austin, and not over 4 miles long. A cloudburst at its head 
contributed so much water in such a short time that the stream flowing through a con¬ 
stricted channel tore out all bridges, retaining walls, and adjacent 1 uildings. This 
flood was entirely local and in nowise connected with a Colorado River flood, and is 
mentioned only to bring out the fact that a locally disastrous flood may occur on any 
tributary, however insignificant. 

The principal tributary streams of the Colorado River system taken up here for dis¬ 
cussion are Pedernales, Llano, San Saba and Concho Rivers, and Pecan Bayou. 

20. Pedernales River .—The Pedernales River rises in the southwestern part of Kimble 
County at about elevation2,300; flows easterly about 108 miles; enters the Colorado 
River in the southwestern part of Travis County at about elevation 600; with a water¬ 
shed area of about 1,300 square miles. 

The country drained by the Pedernales River is a rough, broken region of limestone 
buttes covered irregularly with black gumbo soil. The hills are forested with scrub, 
live oak, and cedar timber, and the river bottoms with a heavy growth of pecan and oak, 
with some cypress near the mouth of the stream. 

Around Johnson City, Harper, and Fredericksburg, agriculture is practiced, but the 
bulk of the watershed is devoted to gracing, and excepting adjacent to the towns named 
is sparsely settled. A considerable income is derived from the large natural pecan 
groves of the river bottoms. 

The average rainfall of the region is between 25 and 30 inches, most of which* falls 
during the spring and f all months. 

Discharge of the river is derived from storm water and numerous springs, the low 
water discharge at a point 13 miles above its mouth being estimated during 1917, a very 
dry year, at about 10 cubic second-feet. No gauging stations have yet been established 
and accurate discharge data is not available, but it is evident from high water marks 
observed, and the testimony of residents, that floods as high as 40 feet have occuired; 
moderate floods during rainy seasons being frequent. No reliable information relat¬ 
ing to frequency, duration, or destructive effects of these floods could be obtained, but 
it is certain that flood accretions to the Colorado River from this source are an important 
factor. 

A storage or detention reservoir in the Pedernales River should be located as near 
the mouth as possible, 1 ut far enough above there to avoid interfering with or being 
interfered with by backwater from reservoirs in the Colorado River below there. It 
is not probable that any such will be constructed to raise water in the Pedernales above 
elevation 635, the elevation of the crossing of the road between Bee Caves and 
Corwin, about 3 miles above the mouth of the river. Along the lower third of the length 
of the Pedernales, dam sites are found wherever the natural condition of bluff banks 
on each side and a wide reach above occurs. T his condition is found at several points. 

Foundations are as a rule good, and natural materials of construction abundant and 
of good quality. 

The nearest railway point to this part of the stream is Austin, 25 or 30 miles distant. 
Highway connections are good. 

Using the United States Geological Survey topographic maps as a basis, apparently 
the best location for a storage reservoir is about one-half mile below the mouth of Flat 
Creek. 20miles above the mouth of the Pedernales, 8 miles above the Cypress Mill cross¬ 
ing, in Blanco County. The river bed elevation is about 825, and a dam to spillway 
elevation of 900, with crest length of 2,000 feet, would create a reservoir 13 miles long, 
of an average depth of 37 feet, with storage capacity to spillway crest of 36,000 acre-feet. 
The land to be submerged is of low value for other purposes and no industries or 
towns are interfered with. On account of transportation, attention here should be 
given to a rock fill, or combination earth and rock fill dam. It is possible that further 
study may develop other and more advantageous sites. 

The Pedernales River does not carry the great proportions of heavy silt borne by the 
Colorado River, and consequently silting of a reservoir here would not 1: e rapid. 

21. Llano River .—The South Llano River rises in Edwards County at about elevation 
2,300; flows northeasterly about 60 miles to its confluence with the North Llano River 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 33 

at the town of Junction, in Kimble County, at elevation about 1,900; the drainage 
area above there being 1,700 square miles. 

The North Llano River rises in the southern part of Sutton County at about elevation 
2,300; flows easterly about 44 mile3 to its confluence with the South Llano; drainage 
area above Junction, about 803 square miles. 

Below the confluence of the north and the south branches the stream is known as 
the Llano River; flows easterly about 106 miles; enters the Colorado River at Kingsland 
in the southeastern part of Llano Countv, at about elevation 835; the watershed area 
below Junction is about 1,957 square miles, and the area of the entire system about 
4,460 square miles. 

From the headwaters to the southwestern part of Kimble County the South Llano 
drains a part of the Edwards Plateau, composed of broken tablelands intersected with 
rough, dry gullies; the soil is a shallow black gumbo; the hills and draws are timbered 
with scrub oak, cedar, and mesquite, and usually well grassed. The only discharge 
of the stream here is derived from storm water, and is intermittent ; run-off is high and 
rapid. 

At the “Seven Hundred Springs” in Kimble County, a group of artesian springs 
issues from crevices and fissures along a faulted zone in the limestone, and the stream 
receives a strong constant flow of water, making it one of the most valuable power and 
irrigation streams in the State. 

The territory drained by the North Llano above Junction is similar to that of the 
South Llano. The North Llano is not fed by such strong springs as the south branch, 
and its normal contribution amounts during dry seasons to very little. Storm run-off 
is proportionately as great. 

Below Junction the valley of the Llano River widens, including rich alluvial 
bottom lands heavily forested with pecan timber. The character of the watershed 
remains about the same, except that with each step eastward the condition of humid¬ 
ity increases, and the growth of vegetation increases in size and quantity. The soil 
continues a black gumbo until the granite area is entered in Mason County, and from 
there to the mouth of the stream the country is composed of granite knobs with wide 
valleys of sandy soil, well forested with oak, cedar, mesquite, and scrub. The river 
bottoms are of alluvial soil of varying depth and width. 

In the lower valleys of the Llano considerable farming is done during years of suf¬ 
ficient rainfall. There are a number of small irrigation plants along the stream, and 
a project designed to irrigate 10,000 acres at Junction, but at present irrigating only 
1,000 acres. Stock raising is the greatest industry of the country and an important 
item is the pecan crop from the natural and planted groves along the river. 

The United States Geological Survey in cooperation with the State board of water 
engineers has established gauging stations on the North Llano at Junction, and on 
the Llano below there. Valuable data on ordinary discharges has been collected, but 
the stations have not been in operation long enough to collect any flood data. 

Discharges at the junction stations are as follows: 


Year. 

| Maximum. 

Minimum. 

Mean. 

Total run¬ 
off. 

North Llano River near Junction: 

1916. 

...... .... 

Sec.-ft. 

. 117 

Sec.-ft. 

1.2 | 

Sec.-ft. 

20.4 

Acre-feet. 
18,400 

1917. 

392 

10.3 

7,430 

Llano River near Junction: 

1916. 

. 1,390 

46 

123 

• y 

89,600 

1917..__ 

132 

17 

53 

19,346 



To obtain complete ratings of Llano River discharges, data should be collected 
nearer the mouth, as there are several important tributaries below Junction. Such a 
station is now being considered by the Geological Survey and State board of water 
engineers. 

Rainfall on the Llano watershed varies from 15 to 20 inches at the head, to 30 to 35 
inches at the mouth; most of this occurs during the spring and fall months. 

No reliable collected flood data is available, but the residents of Junction state 
that during December of 1913 a flood occurred that raised water into the streets of 
Junction. In this instance continued rains caused a slower subsidence than usual 
and this was one of the principal contributions to the disastrous flood in the Colorado 
below Austin. As a rule floods on the upper Llano near Junction rise and subside 
very quickly, duration being seldom over 36 hours. 

H. Doc. 304, 66-1--3 

















34 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


As local flood damages are at present inconsequential, the Llano is treated only in 
its relation to the Colorado River, and the desirability of such flood storage as affects 
the Colorado. 

The most advantageous location for a flood protection reservoir is found on the 
United States Geological Survey topographic maps to be at a point in Llano County 
about 3 miles northwest of Kingsland. River bed elevation here is about 840; a dam 
built to spillway elevation of 900, would form a reservoir extending 6 miles upstream, 
with an average width of one-half mile, average depth of 30 feet, and storage capacity 
to spillway crest of about 28.000 acre-feet. Land to be submerged is of comparatively 
low value, construction materials abundant and of good quality, foundations good, and 
railway facilities adjacent. A concrete dam could be built here at a low cost. 

The Llano River does not carry much silt except at time of flood, and a reservoir 
would retain its maximum capacity indefinitely. 

The advantages of other locations on the Llano should be studied, also the possi¬ 
bilities of supervision and cooperation in the erection of dams at other points by pri¬ 
vate interests. By providing proper spillways at power and storage works some degree 
of flood regulation could be attained. 

22. San Saba River .—The San Saba River rises in the southeastern part of Schleicher 
County at about elevation 2,300; flows easterly about 130 miles; enters the Colorado 
River about 7 miles northeast of the town of San Saba in San Saba County, at about 
elevation 1,125; the watershed area covering about 3,150 square miles. 

Principal tributaries are Richland, and Brady Creeks, both delivering considerable 
discharges. 

The country drained by the San Saba above Menard is a region of limestone pla¬ 
teaus, hilly, and intersected by rough dry draws; the soil is a shallow black gumbo. 
Cover consists of grass, scattered growths of scrub oak, and some cedar, with heavy 
pecan and oak timber along the river. 

Below Menard the valley widens and a considerable area of first and second bottom 
is irrigated and cultivated. The character of the hills beyond the bottoms remains the 
same. At Camp San Saba the river enters a rougher country from which it emerges 
at the “Narrows” about 18 miles soutlrwest of San Saba. From about 7 miles west 
of San Saba to its mouth it flows through a wide fertile valley, intensively cultivated 
and irrigated. 

Rainfall varies from 15 to 20 inches at the head, to 30 to 35 inches at San Saba and 
the northeastern part of the watershed. 

At the head of the stream the discharge is derived entirely from storm water and is 
intermittent. At Fort McKavett, on the line between Menard and Schleicher Counties 
the stream is fed by large artesian springs, and discharge is perennial, this discharge 
being augmented by other similar springs along the course. 

The United States Geological Survey m cooperation wdth the state board of water 
engineers has established gauging stations at Menard, and near San Saba. The sta¬ 
tion at San Saba was established during 1904, but records prior to 1915 are too frag¬ 
mentary to be of value. The station at Menard was established during 1915, since 
which time records of both stations have been systematically kept. Both stations 
are well rated for normal stages, but flood data is lacking, as no floods have occurred 
since the stations have been in operation. Comparatively little is known about the 
origin of floods on this watershed, but from the nature of the country it is to be expected 
that floods would be high and of short duration. 

Discharges of the San Saba River at Menard, and near San Saba, are as follow's: 


Year. 

Maximum. 

Minimum. 

Mean. 

Total 

run-off. 

San Saba River at Menard: 

1916.,. 

Sec.-ft. 

113 

Sec.-ft. 

7.1 

Sec.-ft. 

37.9 

Acre-ft. 
27,500 

1917.'. 

315 

. 7 

22.1 

16,000 

82,510 
57,100 

San Saba River at San Saba: 

1916. 

1,120 

22.0 

113.0 

1917. 

4,100 

6.8 

79.2 




During December, 1913, a flood occurred that submerged parts of both the towns of 
Menard and San Saba. This was one of the contributory flood peaks that caused the 
disaster on the lower Colorado River at that time. 

There are at present 13,632 acres declared irrigable under existing systems taking 
water from the San Saba River, of which 11,006 acres are using 22,012 acre-feet of water 
per annum. In addition the towns of Menard, Brady, and San Saba are using water 
from the river for municipal purposes. 













COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


35 


The rainfall of the region is too irregular to permit of dry farming throughout the 
area of the watershed except in a few favored localities, and where irrigation can not 
be resorted to the principal industry is stock raising. 

That p'art of the valley adjacent to San Saba is nearly all in a high state of culti¬ 
vation, and is subject to damaging floods. A reservoir above there would serve for 
local flood protection as well as control of Colorado River floods. 

The best and about the only site for a flood protection reservoir is at the “Narrows,” 
about 15 miles southwest of the town of San Saba. Here the river passes through a 
canyon cut through a range of hills, and a satisfactory site can be located. At this 
site, about 1} mile3 below the mouth of Brady Creek, a dam built from river bed 
elevation of 1,310 to spillway elevation of 1,400, with a crest length of 2,500 feet, 
would form a reservoir with a storage capacity of 127,000 acre-feet to spillway eleva¬ 
tion. Land to be submerged is of low value for other purposes; construction materials 
are abundant at or near site, and railway facilities available within 10 miles. This 
site has been filed upon for irrigation storage, but up to the present time no construc¬ 
tion has been attempted. There are several sites for smaller storage available near 
Voca and (’amp San Saba, but as these are above the entry of the principal tributaries, 
they would receive only the waters of the San Saba itself. 

23. Concho River .—The Concho River is formed by the confluence of its north and 
south branches at San Angelo, Tom Green County. 

The North Concho rises in Andrews County at the extreme western border of the 
State, its watershed extending into New Mexico; flows southeasterly 170 miles to 
its junction with the South Concho at San Angelo; watershed area, 7,530 square miles. 

The South Concho rises in the central part of Schleicher County; flows northerly 
45 miles to its confluence with the North Concho; the Middle Concho is the principal 
tributary; watershed area 10,800 square miles. 

Below the confluence at San Angelo the stream is known as the Concho River; flows 
easterly 54 miles; enters the Colorado River in the northeastern corner of Concho 
County; below San Angelo the watershed area covers 6,150 square miles; total area 
18,150 square miles. 

The sources of the Concho group of rivers are in a high plains country, chiefly in 
its natural state. Flow at the headwaters is derived from storm run-off and is inter¬ 
mittent. Near San Angelo the flow of all the branches is augmented by artesian 
springs. This was formerly one of the principal sources of discharge of the Colorado, 
but the present normal contribution is much reduced by the use of water for irrigation. 

There are 13,510 acres declared irrigable under existing systems taking water from 
the Concho and tributaries, of which 11,666 acres are listed as using 23,313 acre-feet 
of water per annum. In addition to this, water is also taken for industrial and muni¬ 
cipal purposes. 

Below San Angelo the river enter's a rougher country, but the character of the stream 
doe3 not change materially. The bed is composed of solid limestone ledges which 
cause the formation of deep still pools, succeeded by rapids over shoals. Banks are 
high, and as a rule there are no extensive alluvial bottoms. 

The rainfall varies from 10 to 15 inches on the upper watershed, to 30 to 35 inches 
near the mouth, the storm run-off being high in proportion and rapid. 

The United States Geological Survey in cooperation with the State board of water 
engineers maintains gauging stations, on the North Concho at San Angelo, Concho 
near San Angelo, and Concho near Paint Rock. These stations were established 
during 1915, and the stream is well rated for normal and ordinary high stages, but 
the stations have not been in operation long enough to obtain flood data. It is known 
that floods are frequent during the rainy season, stages are high, and duration short. 
Discharges at the above stations are as follows : 


Year. 

Maximum. 

Minimum. 

Mean. 

Total 

run-off. 

North Concho River at San Angelo: 

1916. 

Sec.-ft. 

455 

Sec.-ft. 

Sec.-ft. 

8.80 

Acre-ft. 

5,980 

1917 

880 


7. 75 

5,610 

Concho River near San Angelo: 

1916. 

1,750 

2.3 

64.60 

46,900 

21,000 

45,000 
30,600 

1917. 

1,310 

1.3 

33.10 

Concho River near Paint Rock: 

1916. 

1,350 

2,900 

62.00 

1917... 


42.20 


























36 


COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 

The topography of the lower Concho, so far as examined, does not present the most 
favorable conditions for large storage, and such flood protective works, while permit¬ 
ting of some storage, would have to be more of the nature of pure detention by arti¬ 
ficial constriction of channel section. After a more detailed inspection, and surveys 
of this part of the stream, sites combining both storage and detention might be located. 
Foundations are good at all parts of the stream and construction materials abundant. 
Railway facilities are available only at San Angelo and Faint Rock, but highways are 
fair to good. 

24. Pecan Bayou. - Pecan Bayou rises in the eastern part of Taylor County: flow's 
southeasterly about 110 miles; enters the Colorado River in the, southeastern part of 
Mills County. Watershed area above Brownw'ood. 1.560 square miles; entire area, 
2,130 square miles. 

Pecan Bayou differs from the other tributaries of the Colorado River in that it flows 
through a flatter country, of greater rainfall and more cultivation, and derives less of 
its discharge from springs and more from a slow run-off of storm water. The stream is 
comparatively tortouous and sluggish, and the flow is somewhat retarded by a number 
of small dams storing w r ater for irrigation and municipal uses. 

Rainfall on the watershed averages between 20 and 35 inches, but is irregular. 
During seasons of ordinary rains rises in the stream are frequent; these are said to take 
place within a moderate time and recede slowly. It is known that considerable local 
damage is caused in the vicinity of Brownwood by these floods, but no data on fre¬ 
quency or extent of damage could be obtained. Floods at Brow'nwood originate both 
locally and on the headw r aters. From a previous reconnoissance it appears that levees 
would offer sufficient local protection w'here this is needed. 

The United States Geological Survey in cooperation with the State board of w r ater 
engineers has during the present year established a gaging station at Brownw'ood, but 
this has not been in operation long enough to secure any but normal records. Dis¬ 
charges for the four-month period that the station has been in operation are: 


v 

Year. 

Cubic feet per second. 

Total 

run-off, 

acre-feet. 

Maximum. 

Minimum. 

Mean. 

1917 (Mav 24 to Sept. 30). 

1,470 


37.8 

9,760 





No site offering exceptional advantages for flood protection storage on Pecan Bayou 
is knowm, and so far as knowm would have to depend largely upon detention. Land 
except that close to the mouth and at the head is high priced, even where used only 
for grazing. As a w'hole the Pecan Bayou basin does not offer the favorable conditions 
for construction, maintainance, and operation of flood protection reservoirs that the 
other tributaries do. However, as it is known that Pecan Bayou discharges its floods 
comparatively slowly, and acts to some extent as a natural reservoir, it is possible that 
no controlling works are needed there, although in the event of further consideration 
of protection reservoirs, attention should be given to a more detailed study of con¬ 
ditions on this stream. 

25. Local organization and demand for improvement of the Colorado River. —The 
Colorado River Improvement Association, whose membership includes interested 
parties and landowners in Travis, Bastrop, Fayette, Colorado, Wharton, and Mata¬ 
gorda Counties, represents the local interests of flood protection, navigation, irrigation, 
and power development. This association is well organized, active, and has a large 
membership. Through the activities of the organization, the commissioners’ courts 
of the counties named have passed resolutions of cooperation with the Federal Govern¬ 
ment in the event of any river improvement being undertaken. Under the recently' 
adopted amendment to the State constitution, the organization of improvement dis¬ 
tricts is made possible and will probably follow'. The rice growers of the lower Col¬ 
orado have a temporary organization toward increasing the supply of water during the 
irrigating season, and would undoubtedly organize permanently and contribute 
toward any movement promising a more reliable water supply. The active coop¬ 
eration of the State board of water engineers (irrigation and pow'er) and the State 
reclamation department (levee3 and drainage) could also be expected. 

As before stated, the local interests in river development along the Colorado River 
are in the order of their importance for the various localities as follows: From Matagorda 
to Columbus, flood protection, removal of the “raft,” irrigation, and navigation, all 
of equal importance. From Columbus to Lagrange, flood protection, navigation, power, 
and irrigation, in the order named. From Lagrange to Austin, navigation, power, 
flood protection, and irrigation, w'ith a decided preponderance of the first named item. 















COLOKADO RIVER, TEX. 


37 


26. Conclusions and recommendations .—Flood protection, especially below Lagrange, 
is entirely worthy, necessary, and feasible, and immediately necessary in the sections 
affected by the “raft.” To arrive at a definite solution of the problem of the best 
methods of attainment, design, and estimates of cost, detailed surveys are necessary. 
To enable the planning of an effective scheme for a new channel around the “raft,” 
or a possible diversion of the Colorado River into another stream (Caney Creek), a 
detailed topographic survey with close contour intervals should be made, not only 
of the country immediately adjacent to the Colorado River in this locality, but includ¬ 
ing Caney Creek and some other drainages, this survey extending as far upstream as 
Wharton. 

From Wharton to Lagrange a topographic survey of the areas subject to flood damage 
should be made with sufficient accuracy to permit the tentative location, estimate and 
comparison of costs, and distribution of benefits of flood protective works. 

Surveys of dam and reservoir sites should be made with sufficient accuracyto permit 
of the design of structures and estimates of capacities. 

Navigation from Matagorda to Wharton appears feasible if the conditions of the 
“raft’ ’ can be overcome. Survey work for this would be included in the surveys for 
flood protection. 

From Austin to West Point, in Bastrop County, there are available the United States 
Geological Survey topographic maps; enlargement and additional data would entail 
only a more detailed survey of the stream itself between these points. From West 
Point to Lagrange such a survey would have to be made with more attention to adja¬ 
cent detail, as this has not been surveyed. 

Hydrographic data is being gathered by the United States Geological Survey in 
cooperation with the Texas State Board of Water Engineers, and is complete. With the 
stations nowin operation and those planned, the Colorado River and its tributaries 
will in time be exceptionally well rated hydrographically. 

As a number of reservoirs for irrigation and power storage are planned on the Colorado 
and its tributaries by private enterprise, the possibilities of supervision and cooper¬ 
ation here should be considered. 

Even though the possibility of a navigable river between Austin and the Gulf may 
appear upon a preliminary examination to be of prohibitive cost, it may be advisable, 
in view of the fact that flood protection is necessary and feasible, to extend the surveys 
for flood protection to include navigation from the mouth of the stream to Austin, and 
establish definitely the possibility or impossibility of such a scheme within reasonable 
limits. 

Respectfully submitted, 

V. E. Lieb. 

Assistant Engineer. 


o 


' 

. 

* 

. 

















1. RECONSTRUCTED DAM IN COLORADO RIVER AT AUSTIN, TEX. 

Part of the first dam was destroyed by the flood of April, 1900. This was rebuilt and the 

flashboards added during 1914-15. 



2. COLORADO RIVER, MILLER RAPIDS, NEAR TOWN OF COLORADO CHAPEL, 

BASTROP COUNTY, TEX. 


The river falls about 8 feet over a series of ledges in a distance of one-fourth mile. Note 

the typical deposit of gravel on the left. 










3. COLORADO RIVER AT LAGRANGE, TEX. 
Long, deep pools with sluggish current. 



4. FALLS IN COLORADO RIVER AT COLUMBUS, TEX. 

A power project is planned here. By diverting across the neck of the bend at this point 

a fall of 20 feet can be developed. 








5. COLORADO RIVER BELOW COLUMBUS, TEX. 

A typical case of bank cutting. Trees growing on the banks are undermined; some fall 
into the river and become snags; others dry out and find their way to the “raft.” This 
is believed to be one of the chief sources of accretion to the “raft.” 



6. COLORADO RIVER BELOW WHARTON, TEX. 
Backwater caused by the “raft”; in effect a reservoir. 









7. COLORADO RIVER, TEX. HEAD OF THE “RAFT.” 



8. COLORADO RIVER, TEX. 


NEW PART OF THE 


RAFT 


NEAR THE HEAD. 













9. COLORADO RIVER, TEX. “RAFT” AT THE MOUTH OF BLUE CREEK. 
October, 1917, about one-fourth mile below the head. 



10. COLORADO RIVER, TEX. OLD PART OF THE “RAFT.” 

At this point it is possible to walk across on the mass, although water still finds its way 

under and through. 






11. COLORADO RIVER, TEX. SECTION OF OLD “RAFT” ABOUT 12 MILES BELOW 

BAY CITY. 

Alternately wet and dry portions of drift have here rotted and been washed out. This pic¬ 
ture was made at a time of extreme low water and shows drift exposed that is normally 
submerged. 












WAR DEPARTMENT. 


CORPS OF ENGINEERS, U 


/£ 


** 


/o+' 


SUBMITTED: 



WATERSHED, COLORADO RIVER. TEXAS 

IN I SHEET. SCALE - l“ SOMI. 

© IO 20 so Xc 50 loo 

U.S.ENGINEER OFFICE, GALVESTON, TEX. NOVEMBER, »9i7. 




assistant engineer. 

ORAWN BY 

PILE NO. 


COX.£0RPS OF ENGINEERS, L 

TRANSMITTED WITH R^JRT 
OATEO, JUNE, 30, 1919. 


.S. ARMY. 


H. Doc 304, 66-1. (Follows p. 37.) 


i 








































































































■ .» ' * ' > a ■ 





























WAR DEPARTMENT 


Mi/e O to 8. Channel dear fosily noviqob/e for small boafs 
Mile Q to 38, daft Impassable 

Mile 38 to 65. Channel dear, fasi/y noviqobie for small boots 

M/le 65 to M3. Crooked, and numerous obstruct/ons. 3ars, Songs, fteefs 

Mt/e /43 to 2oo. fasi/y navigable for small boats (to draft) fft d/scb of 50 C. 

x Mt/te zoo to £43 Numerous obstructions, ftars, to nays, fteefs 

K- 



APPROXIMATE PROFILE, COLORADO RIVER, TEXAS 
MATAGORDA TO AUSTIN 

IN I SHEET SCALES HOR |'= IOMI, VERT I 50* 


U S ENGINEER OFFICE. 
SUBMITTED: 


GALVESTON, TEXAS. NOVEMBER. I9»T 
SUBMITTED 




o 

/4-S 


ASSISTANT ENGINEER 
DRAWN »V 

FILE NO I4-6-7A. 

/9s / 2 tr 



//5 


COL CORPS OF ENG'RS, U S.ARM 

TRANSMITTED WITH REPORT 
DATED, JUNE, 30. 1919 

/OS 95 


H. Doc. 304, 66-1. (Follows p. 37.) 































WAR DEPARTMENT 


CORPS OF ENGINEERS, U S ARMY. 


Max. 0/scA. 34, 700 



£st Afa^ Dhc/j. 6 Q 000 


40.000 

TrP/C/i/. f/.OOD PfPFS 
Z?1/st//v ane/ Columbus. 

30,000 


20,000 


/Wax. P/scA 39,200 

4' 


/JooJ A/aye, _ 


/O.OOO 



>5 

V.N 


£st Mat. 0/sch 

2.3/000 


4 

•8 


4 

V 

0 

4 


Stages A7 Austin and Columbus, 
Flood of Dec. /9/3. 




■40 


30 


20 


/3 

May, /90B 


20 


30 5 

U//?e, 79 OB. 


40 


30 


ffUST/N. 

Mat.QlscA. 60,000 


/2 20 
May. / 9 O 0 . 


40,000 


30 

COL UMBUS. 


/o /s 

June, / 900. 


20 


30 


/0 


/Vov. /9/3. 


/HUS T/N. 


20 25 22 30 /o 20 

Dec. / 9/3 . /Vov. /9/3. Dec. 29/3 

COLUMBUS. 


26 


Us A. Max. /P/scA. 4-6,000 


40 


\ » 
\ \ 


S/aye-s /Uds/zo c7pc/ Co/c//7?bus, 
/ar//a7/y reycy/a/ac/ Ay //t/sA/n /Pam. 



20,ooo 


/0,000 


30 

f/UST/M 


/o 2 o 

A/ay. / 9 /*. 



FLOOD HYDROGR APHS, COLORADO RIVER, TEXAS. 
AUSTIN AND COLUMBUS. 

zo IN 1 SHEET. SCALES :-TIME l“; 10 OAYS, STAG E j'mo’, DISCHARGE « I *V IOOOO C.S.F. 

0.5.ENGINEER OFFICE. GALVESTON, TEX. November. 1917. 

SUBMITTED: ^ SUBMITTl 


DRAWN BY 


ASSISTANT ENGINEER. 

TAZpC. 

FILE NO. \A- 6 - 7 S 



transmitted with rep 
dated, JUNE. 30 . ISI 9 


/S 20 30 

//fir. , 9 / 4 . C0/UA/3UC. 


20 30 

A/oy. /9/5. 


H. Doc. 304,66-1. ( Follows p. 37.) 


























































av 







OL 





... *\ 

. 




■ 




































- 






























































































■ 



















■ 












































































































































































. 








































LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 






